OPPOSE BILLS= LACK OF LIBERTY! President Biden, Progressive Democrats, and Democratic Socialists of America sure have limited citizens' choices. Your Party has done a great job putting America last. "Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." ~ John F. Kennedy

Please see the attached letter outlining Montgomery County's opposition of SB 697

Please see attached comments

Vote no SB697

> Massive solar industrial projects will cause massive flooding and destruction of the environment. My husband, Michael Johnson (a retired UVA mathematician and biomathematical modeler) has done the numbers on a 640-acre solar industrial project in Albemarle County: > With only ONE inch of rain, the run-off will be 17.4 MILLION gallons of water. > With 2 inches of rain: 34.8 MILLION gallons of water > With 5 inches of rain (as we had in late summer 2020): 87 MILLION gallons of water. > > There is no possible "buffer" that will stop such huge amounts of water coming down from a slope. That much rain will wash away any buffer and send sediment down hill and downstream, potentially flooding other properties. After several rains this erosion will be substantial, as is already happening with the solar industrial project in neighboring Louisa County: https://www.wtvr.com/news/problem-solvers/problem-solvers-investigations/virginia-farmers-and-dominion-energy > Who is going to pay for the flooding that will occur due to these huge impermeable, solar industrial projects? Will the state, county or the project's operators be required to have insurance to cover damage done to the environment or to adjacent properties? > > And IF one or more of those panels is broken or damaged -- hail? golf ball? bullet? lightning strike? -- the POISONOUS CADMIUM within the panels will leach into the ground water. When these panels are decommissioned in 20 or so years (beyond the lifetimes of most of our current supervisors), their dismantling will be highly labor intensive since workers will have to carefully remove panels from their frames without breaking the glass. Wonder whose landfill will accept our highly toxic waste?? > Is the Commonwealth providing ways to dispose of this VERY toxic waste? And noise pollution? The panels emit a humming noise as the DC (direct current) is being transformed into AC (alternating current.) > > So: We have here the destruction of forest, of farm land, of plant life, of soil ecology. And by the way, solar industrial projects also kill thousands of birds, although it is not understood exactly why this is. > Is this the legacy of our Commonwealth to future generations? Poisoned ground water, toxic waste, destruction of our natural beauty? And all because you think human beings are controlling global climate? Seriously? Yours sincerely, Diane Weber Keswick, VA

Dear sir and madam, I attended the University of Virginia graduating in 1980 with a degree in chemical engineering and I’m now retired In Albemarle county. I oppose 697 as it removes critical local decision-making from the counties. Each county has very specific and localized requirements and characteristics and therefore the issue of approving ground based solar is best left to those local cities. Respectfully submitted, Peter Bertone.

Dear members of the CCT Subcommittee, I have lived in the Delaplane/Marshall Virginia area for 24 years. I am proud of how hard the citizens of Fauquier County have worked for decades to preserve a rural way of life. SB 697, although it may be well-intended, is a threat to everything we have done in our County to protect agriculture. Fertile farmland is a valuable, disappearing resource. Studies show that farmland deteriorates when covered by industrial solar and is essentially lost as farmland. SB 697 would allow the "by right" construction of huge utility solar facilities on over 18,000 acres in our scenic, agricultural county without local government oversight. Local government should retain that authority and this bill should be rejected. Please oppose this bill. There are other ways to increase solar power than ruining valuable farmland.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON SB 697 By a narrow margin, the Senate has passed SB 697 which essentially eviscerates local government authority over large utility solar facilities. Among other provisions, this bill prohibits local government oversight for such developments up to 4% of the total area of the county. In Fauquier, that could mean "by right" utility solar development of over 18,000 acres These facilities are not farms as they are incorrectly called but large industrial facilities which have a significant impact on farm land, residential neighborhoods, natural and historic resources including wildlife habitat, water run-off management, transmission line access, and waste disposal of damaged and retired panels which often contain toxic materials. Local governments should have the authority to protect their own citizens and resources, especially farm land, which is a central part of our rural economy. This is why the Virginia Farm Bureau strongly opposes this bill as well as the Virginia Association of Counties. SB 697 is now in your Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns. Please vote no and encourage your colleagues to oppose it as well.

Please Vote "No" on SB697. This bill is a blatant assault on local authority, stripping local governments of their power to regulate utility-scale solar facilities. Fauquier County has developed a reasonable ordinance for USS and is seeking opportunities to improve it currently. Beyond the question of why any county should underwrite solar development for the data center industry that blows 50% of all energy into space, the four percent area rule is capricious at best. County control would not be restored until 16,665 acres were under panel. The bill’s neglect of adverse environmental impacts could lead to irreparable ecological damage. Its myopic focus on solar energy neglects the need for a diverse energy portfolio, leaving communities vulnerable during inclement weather or periods of limited sunlight. This legislation is a grave overreach that jeopardizes local democracy, environmental well-being, and the pursuit of a sustainable energy future. Vote "NO" on SB697.

Reject SB697! This bill is a blatant assault on local authority, stripping local governments of their power to regulate ground-mounted solar facilities. It’s a gross violation of the principle of subsidiarity, undermining the democratic right of communities to tailor regulations to their unique needs. The arbitrary four percent area limit lacks nuance, failing to account for diverse landscapes and developmental needs. The legislation’s dangerous inflexibility in environmental standards risks stagnation and compromises potential eco-friendly alternatives. The reckless exemption clause for pre-July 1, 2024 projects encourages a mad dash for approvals, compromising thorough evaluation and incentivizing exploitation of a regulatory loophole. The bill’s neglect of adverse environmental impacts could lead to irreparable ecological damage. Its myopic focus on solar energy neglects the need for a diverse energy portfolio, leaving communities vulnerable during inclement weather or periods of limited sunlight. This legislation is a grave overreach that jeopardizes local democracy, environmental well-being, and the pursuit of a sustainable energy future. Urgent and comprehensive revisions are imperative to address these flaws and align the law with principles of local governance, adaptability, and environmental stewardship. The bill unjustly burdens rural communities, boosting profits for solar developers at the expense of those with limited resources. Alternative legislation should mandate solar panels into every current and upcoming governmental building, school, shopping mall, and data center BEFORE allowing permanent farmland destruction!

Please oppose SB697. All land use decisions should remain at the local level so that local citizens and officials can decide what they want in their county or city. Non-local officials who do not reside in a specific area should have no say in which ways the land around people who live there is used.

Good evening, As a resident and taxpayer in what remains of Rural Virginia, I encourage you to vote against this measure. It is completely inappropriate for out of state, for profit companies, and speculative companies who sell their solar development packages to the highest bidder to decide the future of our rural areas. The residents of the counties, through local ordinance and law, should be the decision makers when it comes to land use and how best to preserve that which is good about their own county. Furthermore, it would be irresponsible of you as lawmakers for force counties and localities to accept this absurdly broad brush directive of our landscapes. The longterm affects of these solar developments are not well known. The degradation of the land is undeniable, and the amount of hard surface water runoff is potentially catastrophic. Let’s not jump out of frying pan into the fire, and let’s not turn our beautiful state into a nightmare of zoning!

Please vote No on HB 697 and leave this important land-use decision in the hands of local governments.. Thank you.

I am a licensed landscape architect who owns a design business and practices in Virginia. I am also a registered democrat. I am deeply disturbed by the proposal eliminating special use permits for solar farms in the state of Virginia. This decision should be at the county and city levels, not the jurisdiction of the state. Each site is individual, with different viewsheds, flora, fauna, stormwater considerations. While I am entirely for green energy, we must do the research and not allow corporations to money grab these contracts at the detriment to our environment. Please do what is right and allow counties, cities and townships to make their own decisions regarding ways to control solar installations in their areas. Special use permits seem the correct approach… for now. I want more rigorous control and oversight on these types of development, but more on that in my next letter. Best, Anna Boeschenstein 5489 Secretarys Sand Rd. Esmont, VA 22937

PLEASE VOTE NO ON SB 697 By a narrow margin, the Senate has passed SB 697 which essentially eviscerates local government authority over large utility solar facilities. Among other provisions, this bill prohibits local government oversight for such developments up to 4% of the total area of the county. In Fauquier, that could mean "by right" utility solar development of over 18,000 acres These facilities are not farms as they are incorrectly called but large industrial facilities which have a significant impact on farm land, residential neighborhoods, natural and historic resources including wildlife habitat, water run-off management, transmission line access, and waste disposal of damaged and retired panels which often contain toxic materials. Local governments should have the authority to protect their own citizens and resources, especially farm land, which is a central part of our rural economy.

Please vote no on SB697 - A Blatant Disregard for Local Authority: The legislation curtails the authority of local governments to regulate ground-mounted solar facilities. Stripping away the power of local authorities to determine the appropriate density, size, and impact of these facilities is an egregious violation of the principle of subsidiarity. Communities should be empowered to tailor regulations to their unique characteristics, and this legislation undermines that fundamental democratic principle. Arbitrary Four Percent Area Limit: The imposition of a rigid four percent area limit for ground-mounted solar facilities exhibits a stunning lack of nuance. Different regions possess distinct characteristics, and an arbitrary cap fails to account for the diverse landscapes and developmental needs of localities. This one-size-fits-all approach risks stifling the potential for sustainable energy growth, especially in rural areas with more available land. Inflexible Environmental Standards Reference: The legislation's reliance on a specific set of environmental protection and product safety standards is dangerously inflexible. By tethering compliance to outdated technological & environmental standards, the legislation risks lagging behind industry progress and compromises the potential environmentally friendly alternatives. Exemption for Pre-July 1, 2024 Projects: The exemption clause for projects initiated before July 1, 2024, encourages a reckless rush for approvals to exploit the regulatory loophole. This not only compromises the thorough evaluation of project applications but also incentivizes developers to exploit a pre-determined cut-off date, undermining the very purpose of enacting stringent regulations. Neglect of Adverse Environmental Impacts: The legislation glaringly omits concrete measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, particularly concerning the loss of tree cover & stormwater management. Failing to address these critical issues could lead to irreparable ecological damage or disasters, sacrificing environmental integrity at the altar of expedited solar project approvals. Myopic Focus on Solar Energy: While championing solar energy, the legislation neglects the necessity for a diverse energy portfolio. Overreliance on solar energy leaves communities vulnerable during inclement weather or periods of limited sunlight. A robust and resilient energy strategy demands a more balanced approach, incorporating a mix of renewable & traditional sources to ensure a stable and dependable energy supply. This proposed legislation represents a grave overreach that jeopardizes local democracy, environmental well-being, and the pursuit of a sustainable energy future. Urgent & comprehensive revisions are imperative to address these egregious flaws and align the law with the principles of local governance, adaptability, and environmental stewardship. Unjustly burdening rural communities, particularly those with limited income & resources, by placing the entirety of risks solely on their shoulders to boost profits for solar developers is fundamentally inequitable at every juncture. Perhaps alternative legislation should explicitly mandate the integration of solar panels into every current & upcoming governmental building & school and include shopping malls, & data centers. This should precede any allowance of permanent farmland destruction, especially considering that land is finite while ample structures already exist.

By a narrow margin, the Senate has passed SB 697 ( Van Valkenburg) which essentially eviscerates local government authority over large utility solar facilities. Among other provisions, this bill prohibits local government oversight for such developments up to 4% of the total area of the county. In Fauquier, that could mean "by right" utility solar development of over 18,000 acres. These facilities are not farms as they are incorrectly called but large industrial facilities which have a significant impact on farm land, residential neighborhoods, natural and historic resources including wildlife habitat, water run-off management, transmission line access, and waste disposal of damaged and retired panels which often contain toxic materials. Local governments should have the authority to protect their own citizens and resources, especially farm land, which is a central part of our rural economy. This is why the Virginia Farm Bureau strongly opposes this bill as well as the Virginia Association of Counties. SB 697 is now in your Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns. Please vote NO and encourage your colleagues to oppose it as well. Kevin Ramundo President, Citizens for Fauquier County

We request that SB697 not move forward as we believe that local counties are in the best position to evaluate locations of such facilities. Under no circumstances should localities be required to permit all applications. In some locations, especially depending upon topography, location of water and natural resources, etc. a utility scale solar facility may have little impact and may only minimally affect neighbors, the environment, neighboring lands or agricultural, silvicultural and horticultural soils. In other locations, the impact may be devastating, result in environmental damage and have a significant detrimental impact on soil and water resources, neighboring lands, viewsheds, natural, cultural, historic, archaelogical and architectural resources and on the agricultural, silvicultural and tourism economies of the county. Impacts to the land and water likely will be permanent. Local officials, familiar with these factors are in the best position to evaluate the impact and properly site the facility. As Utility-scale solar and battery storage are in effect largescale power plants, occupying thousands of acres of land, their location should not be determined by out of state solar marketing companies and sanctioned by state officials who are not in a position to evaluate these factors. The state should not require counties to permit these facilities, regardless of the total amount, density, or size of such projects. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Paula Beazley

Taxpayers within a locality should be able to vote on any bills/laws regarding property in their county. Solar farms pollute the ground and tie property up for years beyond the contracted term. They are also an eye sore.

This bill not only takes away important local control of land use but also will damage the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. It will create environmental damage by allowing solar companies to immediately move ahead with projects that may have been previously denied or that are prohibited by current county ordinances—ahead of impending stricter DEQ rules. These new rules will, as of 2025, classify industrial solar panels as impervious. This designation requires much stricter storm management and run off control This rule is being implemented to protect the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It will also help protect adjacent properties from many serious problems caused by excessive run off and flooding. Applications put in (not accepted, just filed with the county) prior to 2025 can go forward under old, lax rules as long as an interconnectivity agreement is finalized. This is usually done at about the same time that the application is submitted. This new rule was to have gone into effect more than a year ago but the solar industry pushed back and got a delay in implementation. This bill invites a deluge of applications for very large projects prior to implementation of new rules designed to protect the Bay. It is not in the best interests of the state and must not go forward Thank you

SB697 with its blanket 4% of the total area of a locality threshold to allow regulation of its own land use is unfair and dangerous in principle -some would say bordering on eminent domain- but also tantamount to a sentence of bankruptcy to smaller counties that don’t have either a lot of developable land (due to Federal parkland and steep slopes for example) or have most of it in agricultural production. In Page County -home of the world renowned Luray Caverns and neighbor to the Shenandoah National Park/Skyline Drive- the 4% metric equates to about 8,000 acres which represents at least 20% -probably more since the metric refers to area under panels and not parcel acreage- of our total farmland! Since farming is our main economic driver, taking such a high percentage of acreage out of agricultural production would significantly impact our local economy, quite possibly fatally. Add to this that not only industrial solar facilities are mentioned in the bills but also storage facilities, data centers would also follow and could not be regulated either. Page County is a prime tourism destination and tourism is our second economic driver after agricultural production. The vast acreage mandated by this bill would also turn our beautiful rural county into another data center corridor as in NOVA. Page County has, after much strife and consideration, enacted a well researched and carefully drafted solar ordinance that protects its rural character. Please don’t wipe away all our long standing efforts with one ill considered broad stroke.

Please vote NO! Localities need to make the decisions on Industrial Commercial Scale Solar Sites. FOUR PERCENT is a lot to ask of any locality. How will cities like Richmond and Petersburg be able to provide 4%. How will counties be able to provide 4% to Industrial endeavors without taking from residential, agricultural and conservation areas.

This is in regards to any solar bills, or bills to remove county level permitting rights. It's unethical to continue down this ridiculous electric energy path. This isn't a replacement for fossil fuels, it just causes the same problems plus more, than data centers. It's weak expensive energy, and has nothing to do with benefiting the environment. The narrative supporting this is fraudulent but still gets used. Common sense would tell us not to dump trillions $$ into a foreign controlled electric energy (China monopolizes manufacturing, foreign land leases) when all the politicians keep saying the electric grid is stressed but apparently our politicians seem more focused on the money grab then caring for Virginia's energy needs, environment or well-being if Virginia citizens. Any politician saying industrial solar is clean and better than "dirty energy" is either misled, ignorant or corrupt. Cherry picking data to support that narrative is deceptive to Virginians. The carbon footprint on industrial solar contradicts policy narratives reducing carbon. Even yellen admitted it was just a financial investment- so why are politicians and solar companies, environmental groups and politicians still lying to the public? By pushing bills like this you endanger our poorest communities because they won't be able to vote themselves away from this financial trainwreck. Any politician supporting this will be remembered for weakening Virginia and industrializing our land and oceans with this dangerous weak electric energy experiment.

I serve as the County Administrator for Rappahannock County. On February 5, 2024 the Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to express their opposition to all bills that remove or overrule local county decisions related to utility scale solar. All localities are different and what might be appropriate for one, might not be for another. Our county has expressed in our Comprehensive Plan that "... we the people of Rappahannock County declare it to be a "scenic county" and all goals, principles, and policies will reflect and devolve from this fundamental recognition." This is particularly important with the Shenandoah National Park occupying more than 20% of our land area with towering views that eliminate the effectiveness of most typical roadside buffers. - We currently allow utility scale solar projects that meet certain size and density requirements that FIT our locality of 7,400 citizens. We strongly oppose the language in SB697 that precludes local elected officials from applying commonsense size and density restrictions that fit the uniqueness of our community that will force us to prioritize our land for utility scale solar installations to support more urban environments who have chosen to dedicate their land to uses other than utility scale solar. - We respectfully request that the bill be left on the table in the committee and not reported.

I oppose SB697 vote no on it.

Please vote no to SB697. Taking away our right to have a say in what happens in our locality is incomprehensible. Also, destroying thousands of acres of farmland and wildlife habitat to put in place these solar monstrosities is just wrong. It certainly is not good for the environment. The promise of more jobs for the locals is another lie. The jobs that will come are temporary at best and most of the employees will not even be local. We have already lost too much land to solar; please do not allow us to lose even more.

All solar panels are not created equally! SB 697 would force local governing authorities to allow a solar developer to utilize solar panels that consist of Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) , a toxic heavy metal that seven Virginia counties ban and that three U.S. federal agencies consider "hazardous." Will over 47 tons of Cadmium in some 2 million solar panels in 13 industrial-scale solar facilities sited in the Bay watershed leach into the soil and waterways of the Commonweath and contaminate the Chesapeake Bay? See slide deck attached.

I am opposed to agricultural land being used for industrial solar. No to industrial solar on agricultural zoned lands.

See attached Resolution, unanimously approved, on behalf of the Page County Board of Supervisors in strong opposition to SB697.

See attached Resolution, unanimously approved, on behalf of the Page County Board of Supervisors in strong opposition to SB697.

I oppose any farmland zoned agricultural being used as a solar plant

no solar farms

With SB697 in question, I ask that you consider voting No. Local communities need the power to regulate their own growth and set their own priorities for development. In Sussex and Surry County, where I live and farm, we have plenty of examples of operating solar projects and projects under construction. It’s my opinion that we need to find a way to make a solar project more productive without destroying thousands of acres of wildlife habitat or productive agricultural land. Their construction also puts a burden on our roadways, runoff in our waterways, and changes the land with no promise that it can ever be restored to usefulness beyond the life of the project. No locality should be forced by the state to accept these terms. Please vote no.

This land belongs to the people. It is not the government’s place to determine what gets done with it. Find another location to disrupt and ruin because you’re not welcomed in Sussex County Virginia.

Members of the Virginia House of Delegates, It is unusual for me to comment on bills in consideration, however in regards to this particular bill I ask that you carefully consider the impact it will have today as well as in the future. I find with great interest that the main purpose of this bill is to remove the authority that localities have when deciding whether to approve or decline an application for a “utility-scale” solar farm. It is interesting to me that this bill creates a statewide authority to approve any and all “utility-scale” solar farms with very few restrictions, and without any input from the localities. Local governments provide citizens with a chance to voice their opinions as they shape the way their communities will look now, as well as in the future. As government officials yourselves, and also citizens of the towns and communities that you live in, you should be appalled that this piece of legislation is even being considered. Put yourself in the shoes of our fellow Virginians who still wish to have a voice in their communities, and do not take away their their ability to stand up in a town hall meeting to voice their opposition to a project that they may not want in their community. Like many of you, I am a supporter of renewable energy, including wind and solar. I also support ethanol, renewable aviation fuel, biodiesel, electric and hydrogen power. But I also believe each of these renewable sources of energy should be located in areas where the people who live there, are also welcoming to it. As a state leader, it would be unethical to pass legislation that mandates the approval of a project that may not be wanted by the community it is located in. Let’s pretend you asked me the question- “ If you say you support solar energy, why don’t you install a “utility-scale” solar farm on your property?” Answer: As a farmer, I strive to be the best steward of the land that I can be. I know my fields better than anyone else, and in some cases, I know it better than the people who own it. I do everything I can each and every day to take care of this land, so that it can continue to produce food and fiber for our state and our nation. Our farmland in Virginia is some of the most productive in the United States. As a matter of fact, the world record corn yield was produced in Charles City, VA just last year, and our Virginia peanut farmers just recorded their highest state average yield on record in 2023 as well. Virginia is limited on the total number of acres that are suited for growing crops, and as the western half of the United States continues to dry up, Virginia finds itself in position to be a leader in agricultural production in the future. With all of that being said, “utility-scale” solar farms are not the best use of my farmland. Over the last 10 years, people in rural areas of Virginia have begun to acknowledge the importance of agriculture and preserving our agricultural land. There have been record large turnouts in community meetings across the state as localities have voted whether to approve or deny “utility-scale” solar farms. People who live in these localities know their land better than me or you, and perhaps even better than the people who own it. Just because we may not like the outcome the meetings, we must respect the wishes of the people who live in each locality. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and I kindly ask that you vote this bill down.

Vote No.

No Solar Farms in our rural farm community!!

Do not support 697. Allow local control

I oppose SB697! I do not want industrialized solar near my home, due to the loss of habitat for wildlife and loss of fields for food crops. Please do not do this to our beautiful county

I oppose the solar projects

This hoax about green energy and solar needs to be stopped! I have seen too much property in this county destroyed! Although I agree that a landowner should be able to use his land however he/she sees fit, I do not however agree when it decreases adjacent property owners land values and there ability to live in a safe environment! Solar energy is not Green energy and is more harmful to the environment than the resources we use now. Furthermore, solar is not reliable energy! Why are so many solar facilities needed? How much research has gone into the actual cost and impact on communities ? Solar panels have been found to alter the climate negatively, decrease property values, destroys the landscape , pollutes streams and ruins agricultural land. The people of this county have worked all their lives to build their homes, to live in piece and feel safe in their homes! Please stop this madness before it’s too late! Halifax County can not afford any more Solar facilities! It seems to me these Solar facilities are doing more harm than good and I ask that all taxpayer concerns be heard and considered! There is not enough research being done and what future generations will be left with will be catastrophic! Thank you, Stephanie Fallen, Alton Virginia

This hoax about green energy and solar needs to be stopped! I have seen too much property in this county destroyed! Although I agree that a landowner should be able to use his land however he/she sees fit, I do not however agree when it decreases adjacent property owners land values and there ability to live in a safe environment! Solar energy is not Green energy and is more harmful to the environment than the resources we use now. Furthermore, solar is not reliable energy! Why are so many solar facilities needed? How much research has gone into the actual cost and impact on communities ? Solar panels have been found to alter the climate negatively, decrease property values, destroys the landscape , pollutes streams and ruins agricultural land. The people of this county have worked all their lives to build their homes, to live in piece and feel safe in their homes! Please stop this madness before it’s too late! Halifax County can not afford any more Solar facilities! It seems to me these Solar facilities are doing more harm than good and I ask that all taxpayer concerns be heard and considered! There is not enough research being done and what future generations will be left with will be catastrophic! Thank you, Stephanie Fallen, Alton Virginia

I am totally opposed to Senate bill 697. Local governments and entities should make their own ordinances concerning land use.

Is this how the Great Commonwealth of Virginia seeks to run it's state? Does she seek to trample the efforts of local communities to live in a community of their own making? The granting of any of these powers through this bill is nothing short of the backhanded approval of overriding a county's sovereign right to economic and community self- determination. While I am sure the bill touts some some sort of "appeal mechanisms" or the "right to public hearings", the sponsors and corporations responsible for this bill know that 90% of the counties in this commonwealth have neither the resources, expertise, or finances to fight off state agencies and the corporations as they attempt to foist one of these facilities upon them. Having been deeply involved with solar sighting and permitting issues for the last 7 years in Page County, I can tell you with absolute certainty that these facilities will saddle unsuspecting counties with unlimited risk in the maintenance, indemnification, and decommissioning of any of the facilities foisted upon them by the state and her allied business interests. Is this what we want - substituting the hard fought economic stability of our small counties for the economic gain of the state and multinational corporations? I don't' think so and I hope you don't either. Please vote no to these bills and instead consider enlisting the counties help in determining more locally sensitive ways to profit from the boom in renewable energy and data. ...This is something we must do this to maintain the glorious and unique features of this commonwealth and the rights her citizens enjoy.

I oppose this bill! These. decisions should be kept local. We have to live with the consequences.

I feel the people that live in a community know what is best for their community. Trying to force us to have a solar farm is taking away land that is growing crops to feed folks. I have over four acres of trees and they are cleaning the air better than solar panels that are manufactured on the other side of the planet using dirty technology then shipped to America. You then have to install access roads over the farm land, cement pillars, another dirty process, and you end up with a product with a 20% efficiency. I would somewhat agree with solar power if it was at least 50% efficient. Solar installations have to cover tens of acres of land to power 200 houses. I recommend the 200 houses put solar on their roof and leave nature alone. It always seems urban area politicians want to use rural areas to get reelected since they won't have to see the solar farm from their back door. They are also the first ones to want to build garbage dumps and industrial sites in rural areas because out-of-sight-out-of-mind. If you are really interested in protecting the environment invest in public transportation that would be inviting to riders and not a struggle to use.

I stand with others who are against Solar farms. I stand firm and support keeping our land Agricultural. We are losing massive amounts of land here in Virginia to these solar farms. There are no benefits to the residents. There are detrimental effects to our land from these solar farms due to run offs and flooding nearby residents land. Please oppose HB697. Our future depends on it.

I oppose SB697 for sussex county.

Solar farms destroy plant life and wildlife. They can greatly effect water runoff and possibly contaminate ground and well water. They are an eye sore and all the materials used are not recyclable. Please vote NO to more solar farms in our state!!

I adamantly opposed to this plan. Please vote No!! We do not want this!!

I oppose SB697

I am 100% opposed to SB697. Please vote against and save our precious farmland. Solar farms are not farms and are terrible for agricultural farmland, and wildlife, plus are extremely ugly and will ruin my beautiful Orange County. The long-term effects are still widely unknown. Plus, these solar companies are selling to other companies after the initial installation, so all their promises are lost and there is no guarantee on how these facilities will be run or maintained or even the decommissioning in 20 to 30 years when their use is done. AGAIN, PLEASE vote down.

We oppose SB 697, and any measure to take away the power of localities to regulate solar facilities!

I am writing to express my opposition to SB697. I ask that you please vote AGAINST this bill. Solar farms are DESTROYING our agricultural farmland, wildlife habitats and the beauty of our countryside. So again, I ask that you vote NO to SB697.

I totally oppose Bill SB697. My entire family has farmed for a 100 years, both in Sussex and Surry counties. The destruction of our agricultural economy would be devastating.

SB697 I'm expressing my opposition to this bill. Vote no! Please stop asking for a pronoun! It really does offend me! Thank you

Vote no on SB 697. Don’t limit local government authority over the siting of utility-scale solar facilities. Let local government tailor permits to site-specific considerations like impacts to waterways, agricultural soils and forests.

I am writing to express my opposition to SB697. I ask that you please vote AGAINST this bill. Solar farms are DESTROYING our agricultural farmland, wildlife habitats and the beauty of our countryside. So again, I ask that you vote NO to SB697.

I oppose SB697. Vote NO. Decisions should remain at the locality level.

I am writing to express my opposition to SB697. Decisions regarding land-use should remain within the locality and should not have arbitrary minimum-acre requirements when related to industrial solar restrictions. Paige Beale Baldwin 35022 Owens Grove Road Waverly, VA. 23890

I am writing to express my strong opposition to SB697, which aims to prohibit localities from including limits on the total amount, density, or size of ground-mounted solar facilities or energy storage facilities until the total area under panels within the locality exceeds four percent of the total area within the locality, or any prohibitions on the use of solar panels that comply with generally accepted national environmental protection and product safety standards. While I understand the importance of promoting renewable energy sources such as solar power, this bill undermines the ability of local governments to regulate land use in their communities. By preventing localities from implementing reasonable restrictions on the size and density of solar facilities, this bill could lead to unchecked development that may not be compatible with the surrounding environment or community needs. Furthermore, the provision allowing solar installations to proceed as long as they comply with national environmental protection and product safety standards does not adequately address the concerns of local residents and officials. Local governments are best positioned to understand the unique characteristics and needs of their communities, and they should have the authority to establish criteria and requirements for siting solar installations based on local considerations. Instead of preempting local control, policymakers should work with municipalities to develop guidelines and standards that balance the expansion of renewable energy with the protection of local interests and values. This approach would ensure that solar development is conducted responsibly and in a manner that benefits both the environment and the community. In conclusion, I urge you to oppose SB697 and support the rights of local governments to regulate land use in their communities. Thank you for considering my views on this issue.

I am writing to express my opposition to SB697! Decisions regarding land-use should remain within the locality & should not have arbitrary minimum-acre requirements when related to industrial solar restrictions. Sincerely, Sandy Rickmond Wakefield, VA

I oppose this bill, let the locality have control of how they use their land!

I strongly oppose SB697. Please protect our rural and agricultural land.

Vote NO on SB697 - This bill should not be passed. Control of how land is used belongs at the local level. This is a decision to be made by local government - not state or federal - we are the ones who live here!

I oppose SB697! Solar Companies are aggressively riding the subsidized wave. Localities are finding it hard to find places where Industrial Commercial Solar Sites can be appropriately located.

Do not pass this bill, it will only damage our rural communities

Farmers and landowners in Greensville County (including my family) have been to Board meeting after Board meeting for over a year. An overwhelming majority of us are firmly against SB697. It offers only problems, no benefit for the people on whose land it will infringe. We managed to get our local officials to listen to us only to have this try to smack us back down. Much of our land is now owned by third or fourth generation family members who do not want the next generation to have to deal with the mess that solar farms will cause here. Again, they offer no benefit to the county except for monetary gain for some people. Most, if not all farming families here, are against having them. It is not a money making venture for us. We work the land and pass it on to the next generation.

I oppose this bill! This should be left up to the citizens of the locality. We are the ones that have to live with the consequences!

I oppose this bill.! This should be left up to the citizens of the localities. We are the ones that have to live with the consequences.

Let localities decide

This entire government funded solar system is nothing but a joke and a tremendous waste of tax payer dollars. I’ve been around farming and heavy equipment my entire life and know quite a bit about the cost of operation of said equipment. The money spent at the Waverly Solar Site on land acquisition land clearing fuel labor machinery leases its no way in fifty lifetimes it could ever generate enough electricity to begin to pay for itself and now with this bill you’re trying to take the decision to have these horrendous solar sites away from county representatives and the constituents until a certain percentage of the county’s farm land and timber land is ruined permanently is utterly ridiculous. Please stop trying to enforce your socialist ways upon our democracy and allow the citizens a voice as to what they want in their communities

Please vote NO for SB697. Counties should control what development they want inside their counties. These solar facilities are not "farms". We can't just stand still and let this be pushed down out throats. Sussex already has one of the largest land fills on the East coast. We have paid our dues. No MORE Solar!!!

This bill should not be passed. Control of how land is used belongs at the local level. State and federal governments should stay out of our lives.

OPPOSING SB697. If a locality has control over what is built (I.e. zoning and planning), a solar farm is no different. The locality should have the right to control what is built and what is best for the locality, they live in the county, not the state representatives. Solar farms are starting to take over farmland and countryside in VA. Think about it this way, if it takes 14 solar panels (from a quick google search) to power 1 home, then it would take millions to power the state. But those 14 solar panels would take the place of how many stalks of corn which produces 2-3 ears of corn per stalk… this corn is used to feed our livestock or our families. That livestock is turned into meat purchased for eating. The point I am trying to make is, solar panels don’t produce food, farmer’s do.

I oppose this bill as I do not believe that any state agency should have the authority to control land use decisions anywhere. Land use decisions should be made on the local level just as zoning and development issues currently are. Localities have a better handle on the positive and negative effects that large scale solar projects or any other projects can have on the environment and tranquility of life of its citizens. Giving this authority to a state agency is tantamount to a real estate taking. Please vote against this bill.

All industrial solar development should be limited to areas "previously" zoned industrial. It should also be limited to areas that are not agricultural or forested/timberland. There should be a limit to the percentage of any county's land that can be utilized for industrial solar "prior to" any development. There should ABSOLUTELY NOT be a required percentage of industrial solar farm acreage established before the citizens of those areas have the "right" to set limits on the commercialization of their home.

Vote No. This bill as presented will be detrimental to our community.

Please address your attention to the following information: "UTILITY-SCALE SOLAR BELONGS ON INDUSTRIAL-ZONED LAND, MARGINAL OR CONTAMINATED LAND (BROWNFIELDS), ALONG HIGHWAYS, AND ON COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOPS. IT IS NOT A "FARM," IT IS A POWER PLANT. THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF FARM AND TIMBERLAND IS NOT GREEN." From: https://www.citizensforresponsiblesolar.org/ I request full consideration of this statement by all those involved so that the errors in thinking can be addressed and reversed. Thank you.

I strongly oppose SB697. Please protect our rural and agricultural land.

This bill is NOT something WE, as a family, support. The damage done to the land, land values, farm land, to include timber farming, is absolutely unacceptable. I do not support this. Please listen to the voices of those that live here.

Please vote against any such bills that are destroying our farmlands, wildlife habitats and sheer beauty of our countryside. Several of the proposed locations directly impact land we own.

SB697 - Land use decisions should remain local and not decided by the state since every locality is different. Solar is industrial and many parcels aren't zoned for this. Many rural county residents don't want the panels covering the land they live next to.

I do not want any solar farms in my area period

I strongly oppose bill SB697. These solar farms aren't efficient and they are an absolute eye soar on the beautiful landscape that makes up our rural communities. The clean energy that this country needs to be focusing on is nuclear energy. Stop taking away good agricultural land and putting in something that is a feel good initiative. The fact that solar panels are made with toxic materials that can poison our water supply should be enough to stop all solar farm construction. Another good reason is that most, if not all, solar panels are manufactured in China. Last time I checked, China was not a friend of the U.S.A. Please compare all "green" energy solutions with nuclear energy and you will find that nuclear is far more superior to all of them. If these "green" energy solutions were truly the answer, why then are they continuing to be forced down our throats?

Each locality should decide when ,where and how many solar farms not someone that it does not affect

You will kill our land and the children will be left to deal with the aftermath! Do the right thing for them.

Dear Folks, Thank you for your service to the Commonwealth!! I am speaking against Solar Farms for VIRGINIA. No one wants them. We do not need nor want them…. I live in Prince George and attended a meeting several months ago on Solar Farms—I do NOT live in that area nor am I close to that area. I just wanted to support them in saying NO!!!! We do NOT know what the future holds for the folks living in those areas that already have solar farms around them. Please take a look at Rives Road (Petersburg/Prince George area). Is that where YOU would want to live OR invest your life savings? Is the Commonwealth going to hold back a chunk of money to help those folks when they find those areas are unsafe and help those folks relocate or help pay their hospital bills? I think not….. Please, Please do NOT support solar Farms. Thank you for your time, your energy in helping Virginia to be a better state, and I would appreciate your support in just saying NO!!!!

We HIGHLY OPPOSE this bill.

We as citizens pay the taxes in this county. We should have the right to say no solar fields. Do your research these solar farms don't produce enough energy and the batteries they take..what happens to all the batteries when they are nj good? NO SOLAR

Vote NO on SB697. Land use decisions should remain local. The reality is that these SOLAR DEVELOPMENTS will RUIN the rural land forever.

Vote NO on SB697. Residents in each separate county are working to develop ordinances regarding solar farms, and majority in our county are against allowing this NOT SO GREEN idea to overtake rural landscapes and destroy our wildlife habitat and farmlands. The percentage of energy the solar farm provides does not compensate for the amount of acreage lost to these utilities. Recovery of these lands may never happen. Localities should NOT lose control to the state agency which will not be able to handle and micromanage these siting decisions. Land use decisions are local matters

LOCAL issues that directly affect LOCAL tax paying property owners, residents and community, must be left to LOCALLY elected officials. State boards, which have no idea as to the needs, wants and concerns of LOCAL families have no right to dictate how LOCAL elected officials should engage in LOCAL land use issues. This issue is just another attempt by Norther VA & Hampton Roads Democrats to dictate how rural communities will use their lands. SB 697 must be defeated and the State Legislature must not interfere with LOCAL elected officials when it comes to issues that directly affect LOCAL issues.

Local governments should have the absolute right to designate any land for any use within their jurisdiction. The General Assembly, and the Commonwealth of Virginia shall not have any right to breach that right. If a locality wants solar, then they should get it. We should not force the rest of the state to get solar when the blatantly do not want it.

There is one individual in Prince George who is doing everything in her power to stop any bills related to solar energy. Personally I have read this bill and approve of its passage Thank you!

This is a egregious overreach of our elected officials. Our local counties should have the right to make decisions for their area and not be dictated by dictators. We are not a socialist U.S.A. these decisions need to be based on research which obviously no one of our elected officials have done. Solar farms cause much more harm than benefit. If you had done research you would know they cause behavioral problems in children!!! Do your research! Why would you not care about the future of our children. Solar farms can lead to soil compaction and blockage of drainage channels resulting in land DEGRADTION. You can not use the land for approximately 30 years by experts and scientists after use of solar farm. Solar projects should not be placed near streams wetlands and conservation land due to damage of water quality and possible ecological disasters. Uncontrolled run off of water and topsoil is well documented byproduct of a solar farm. It raises the temperature in the area as much as 10 to 12 degrees for up to 3 miles. So if it's 96 degrees, than it will be 106 plus, which can cause problems across the scale. Same with cold. YOU ARE NOT TO LIVE 1. 3 miles from a solar farm. There are individuals that are sensitive to solar. So with those facts how can you make anyone live near danger. Some of these solar farms are right on top of wetlands. They are not even to be close and our county is nothing but wetlands. We need someone to step up ,grow a brain and put a stop to such an egregious overreach. Leave it to the counties. Do you know some governments have even banned solar because of its toxicity and danger to humans?? Nasa has even stated that they are a big problem and more research must be done Period. We also buy these solar panels from China that uses CHILD LABOR!. AND we as a country should fight against that and no t purchase from China. This is not a green new deal and many scientists and experts have said we must put the brakes on wind and solar. Now is the time to slow our heals. As you have seen electric cars etc have shown the huge downside! The cost of battery's and don't work in cold weather. You need to sit back and do endless amounts of research before you put many citizens in harms way and with this push you are most certainly putting us at harms way. Do not talk to sales people, they can make as much as 100,000 dollars a piece off of solar farms. Facts that's why they push so hard. So please leave it to the counties and be a real elected official and do your utmost to do necessary research! Please

Please consider the implications of SB697. It should not be the SCC who decides location of utility solar farms. This should be left to the individual counties and citizens in Virginia and their own locally drafted and approved ordinances. Farmland and forests are precious resources and we could loose more acreage if this bill passes the Senate. Please vote no and consider research to install solar panels on urban structures.

Come to Sussex or Surry or anywhere in rural VIRGINIA. WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THIS!

I strongly support SB697. I think this bill is very well written and fair to all parties concerned. It's good for the landowners as well. Gives them chance to use their land in productive ways to supplement their income,many are on limited Incomes and are suffering. Using their land for solar facilities can be a life line. Please vote YES For Sb697. Have a BLESSED day. to all parties

Opposing SB697

This bill restricts citizens’ role in local government. That alone is anti-American, but is another reflection of the discrimination that rural, minority-majority, lower-income areas experience. This is a slippery slope and is closely tied to controversial imminent domain policies. This is an embarrassing stain on a Democratic majority legislature as we all know that it is the poorer black counties whose communities will be destroyed by the overreach. There is only one reason to remove the voice of local government, and that is because it differs from your goals. Your efforts to silence the people are disgusting.

I oppose the solar and energy facilities local regulation. We need to save our land!

I do not support SB697 because I detest Commercial Solar farms sucking up wetlands and acres of natural beauty in Sussex County, where I reside.

Vote no on SB697. What is the point in having local goverments if we can't govern ourselves and our own resources. It is wrong for the state government to insert itself into the business of local government. If we do not want industrial solar fields to replace our agricultural and woodland acreage, we, the local government have the right to say no.

I am very much opposed to SN697.

VOTE NO! Localities do not need the state deciding what is best for them. Keep decisions local so those that it actually affects have the say!

Vote no on SB697. Land use should be decided at the local level and not the state level. Agricultural land should not be lost to solar farms. Need a place to put the panels? Use the roofs of all the buildings in Richmond, or other industrial buildings through out the state. Or vote to make solar more affordable for individuals who want to install on their own roof.

I am opposed to this bill because it takes away the County’s right to decide if they want to have solar farms in their community.

I don’t believe solar farms are the way to go in Greensville County

The state should have no authority over placement of solar facilities within individual counties The counties governing body and its taxpaying citizens should determine what development is feasible

Please oppose this Bill. Control of use of land needs to remain in the hands of the residents in the in that locality.

If the the state government draw restrictions on the ability to govern of a local municipality. Then, also restrict solar plants from building in places zoned for agriculture and residential. The development of agriculture and residential areas into solar plants have placed an unreasonable burden on communities. Additionally, the infrastructure available in industrial zoning is now place in the back yards of thousands of citizens across the state. These solar plants have ripped hundreds of miles to install high voltage power lines, destroying wildlife habitat. These solar companies are preying on those with little means, and these fly-by-night solar companies continue to try and silence the only voice we have left.

I strongly oppose this bill; please do not pass it. Decisions on solar siting belong in the hands of the local planning and board officials who are aware of the many considerations that need to be taken into account for responsible and effective solar siting.

I do not approve bill SB697. The state should let local officials decide on solar proposals

I am writing to express my displeasure about SB 697. The very idea that rural areas are forced to disrupt their natural habitats by destroying age-old forests, disrupting wet lands, and totally annihilating farmlands that may never recover their usability. Those who live in northern Virginia and the tidewater area have no business telling us what to do in our localities. All someone has to do is ride through our rural areas to see how our counties are being destroyed, how water and mud cover the roads making them impassable, how machinery is parked all over the roadways blocking local citizens from getting back and forth to their homes, etc. It’s a sad state of affairs and I plead with you to keep city people’s noses out of our business. Thank you.

How un-American. Usurping the will of the people and the authorities vested in the county and independent cities is a clear srep towardsfa totalitarian state. Might as well disband all local governments and let the State delegates run everything. You could cover the entire state with solar panels and still not generate enough power for 10 to 20 years from now. Combined with the fact that after the life of the solar farm you cannot produce anything on the land for another 20 years. Now let's consider the environmental damage being caused by the destruction of green zone, the affects on the wildlife, and effects on rising temperatures at these solar farms in the name of "progress". The inability of some people to consider the second and third order effects is astounding. This bill is a travesty and I encourage all to vote against it.

SB 697. Vote no. Each county has the right to make a decision based on the needs of the county with resident input. In Prince George County, citizens continue to oppose solar farms and continue to let the Board of Supervisors know.

Please Vote No to SB697 proposal. Our counties have worked hard to implement ordinances which prevent solar utilities from overtaking our rural landscapes and destroying prime agricultural farmlands. The percentage of solar power provided does not compensate for the amount of acreage lost to these utilities.

Localities should NOT lose control of siting for utility-scale solar facilities nor should they be prohibited from instituting restrictions at the local level. Please vote NO!

Mecklenburg county has obviously become one of the top chosen dumping grounds of mass industrial gentrification here in Virginia. Corporations are buying up as much land as possible as well as foreign actors from countries that vow themselves as enemies to the U.S. buying up private property. Naturally our own legislation wants to make sure it can get keep its fingers in the pie since the general populace has already put up a strong offense against the wave of concrete encroaching on our land. But you won't find these icons of "progress" in the backyards of the elites. Even in our own county, its easy to see areas where these sites have yet to be proposed; how convenient. No its only in the backyards of the poorest among us. Nevertheless, not only is it ignorant to assume that state agencies could handle the mass of affairs of localities; but should they? Absolutely not, nor would they be capable of making the right choice for those that would be intimately affected. This is a blatant power grab and we are once again telling you NO.

I oppose SB 697, which has obviously been influenced by the solar industry, seeking to undermine local ordinances and moratoriums on solar siting. I farm over 2,000 acres in Caroline County, Virginia and apply soil conservation practices as a true steward of the land. I oppose solar installations and the threat this industry imposes on my livelihood, as well as our entire local community. My county has worked relentlessly to impose strict ordinances on solar land grab, and this bill would undermine their protection of my well being, as well as my rights as a citizen. Again, I urge you to NOT approve SB 697. Thank you.

I oppose SB697 and its intent to dictate local municipalities governance. I ask the question, are the Delegates willing to accept responsibility for their potential of setting up conditions that could result in another Camp Lejeune?

I strongly oppose this bill; please do not pass it. Decisions on solar siting belong in the hands of the local planning and board officials who are aware of the many considerations that need to be taken into account for responsible and effective solar siting.

The people have spoken. Please listen and vote NO on SB697.

Please vote NO on this bill.There is so much real science behind not using solar at all and that alone should be enough to vote NO on this bill.There is so much evidence of environmental damage and the low amount of actual energy produced this variable source,that this should not even be considered.The local county government should also not be invalidated at any time for any reason.I have personally taken a poll of about 115 residents, thus far, and every single one of them feels violated by having their freedoms taken away as well as the very precious farm land.This entire climate con will be exposed in the near future.Do the right thing now.Please vote NO

We don’t need solar panels in our county!!!!

I strongly oppose this bill. Land use decisions should remain local. This is a gross misuse of power.

Any and all decisions regarding solar farms should remain within the county and voted on by its citizens. It is up to the people that live there to decide on what is done in their communities.

Please vote NO on this bill. Every individual County has the right to.plan what is best for their County. Solar is an Industrial Commercial site and they try to site next to residents and surround residents with panels. These projects last 40 Years! The thousands of acres will never be the same afterwards.

I live in Southampton but but I've been a member of a huntclub in Sussex for the past 35years and do not support the eyesore that these farm present. I believe that if they are checked they will improach into Southampton as well . Please vote no for this bill.

Every year my family and I travel down to Buckingham for its beauty and history and to see this bill trying to be passed is a shame. I strongly oppose SB697 as my family and friends in the area have been as well. It takes the power away from the local governing body and doesn’t put into account the actual harm these panels can cause to the community and nature.

Please ask them to vote NO on SB697. Localities should NOT lose control of siting for utility-scale solar facilities nor should they be prohibited from instituting restrictions at the local level. We must prioritize the protection of our forests and farms. Solar development should be on already-developed lands. Virginia needs to protect our natural and working lands. We should work towards a balanced solar build-out that not only benefits our environment but also supports our communities, wildlife and waters. We need stronger policies that redirect industrial solar facilities towards already-developed lands and the built environment.

Good evening! My name is David Brankley and I'm on the Mecklenburg Co. Board of Supervisors. I strongly oppose Bill SB697 for the following reasons. 1) Lost of Local control: Once the State starts taking the power of locality's on issues like Solar and Energy facilities what's next. WHO knows better than the locality's Governing body and the citizens they represent? 2) This Bill exclusively benefits Solar Developers: The Bill appears to serve the interests of Solar Developers without clear benefits of the broader community. Please if you would for the benefit of all County Localities VOTE NO on Bill SB697!! Thank you for your consideration, David Brankley Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisor

I strongly oppose this bill. Localities should NOT lose control of siting for utility-scale solar facilities nor should they be prohibited from instituting restrictions at the local level. We must prioritize the protection of our forests and farms. Solar development should be on already-developed lands. Virginia needs to protect our natural and working lands. We should work towards a balanced solar build-out that not only benefits our environment but also supports our communities, wildlife and waters. We need stronger policies that redirect industrial solar facilities towards already-developed lands and the built environment.

We live in beautiful and historic Buckingham county and beg you to vote no on this Senate bill 697. Residents have attended our board meetings and have presented graphs, newspaper articles, environmental reports and EPA reports. The attendees at the board meetings are overwhelmingly against the invasion of solar panels throughout our county. We show hard facts of the negative environmental impact these panels present to our rivers, land, and animals. In the northern neck of Virginia, a solar farm has caught on fire twice. The local fire department did not have the key to the fence. Thereby, it spread to neighboring lands and the fire department had not been trained on hazmat fire control of the panels. Please consider the destruction to land. Are the 16 ft. pylons really going to be removed in 20 years. ? Why not consider on top of parking garages or shopping malls, if you have to insist on solar power, instead of nuclear, gas, or coal. Our board turns a deaf ear to our requests. Please do not ignore your constituents request. Respectfully submitted, Dr. Robert Keeton and Laura Keeton

Please vote NO on Bill 697.

I am writing with strong opposition to SB697. The bill serves the interests of solar developers and punishes local governments that have voted to cease or slow the development of industrial solar facilities. This is bill is an example of environmental injustice and allows corporations to override local government and target poor rural communities for a quick profit. Solar development should be sited on brown lands , rooftops and parking decks and not in areas that destroy our farmland and forests. Please oppose SB697 and create a plan that incentivizes renewables in areas that protect the environment and the future of rural Virginia. (See article below) https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/932be293f1af43c8b776fdad24d9f071

I believe this is overreach. Localities should have the right to make all decisions regarding things like large solar arrays based on individual and unique geography, needs, and circumstances. We have fought hard to keep Big Solar out of our county. For lawmakers in Richmond (many who have never even been here) to undermine said work would be tragic. Thank you, Eric R. Smith

I am OPPOSED to Senate Bill 697. Land-use decisions should be made by local officials who are accountable to their constituents/citizens.

Land use decisions should remain at the local level. SB697 would remove local oversight from zoning changes and preempt forthcoming studies related to solar impacts on the economy and environment. Example 1: HJ 12 - Directs the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to study the impact of utility-scale solar development in the Commonwealth on agriculture, forestry, and the environment; and provide recommendations for how the Commonwealth can meet its goals pertaining to renewable energy production while minimizing the negative impact of solar energy expansion on agriculture, forestry, and the environment. Agriculture and forestry are the Commonwealth's largest private industries, with a combined annual economic impact of over $105 billion, and the health of these industries affects communities around the Commonwealth, especially in rural areas. The results of HJ12 will be presented to the General Assembly in 2026. Example 2: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has awarded a $3.4 million grant to Virginia Tech’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The DEQ grant is for a comprehensive six-year study to determine how utility-scale solar farms impact stormwater runoff and local soil and water quality throughout the state. Also, the 4% threshold of land under solar panels could easily place 8% or more of lands in utility-scale solar facilities due to the additional acreage required at a utility scale solar facilities. For each acre under panel, there is land consumed that would host components of the industrial facilities. Please consider that 4% of 400,000 acres is 16,000 acres. 8% is 32,000 acres. Under SB697, these are examples of the enormous acreages that could be rezoned without local input. The siting of utility-scale solar projects has been changing thousands of acres agriculturally zoned lands to industrial. There should NOT be a one size fits all approach on land use change of this magnitude. Local considerations from land use change need to be evaluated by those most familiar with the unique circumstances present at each site, the locality. The character of localities throughout the Commonwealth is being drastically altered. Localities should NOT lose control of siting for utility-scale solar facilities nor should they be prohibited from instituting restrictions at the local level. We must prioritize the protection of our forests and farms. Solar development should be on already-developed lands. Virginia needs to protect our natural and working lands. We should work towards a balanced solar build-out that not only benefits our environment but also supports our communities, wildlife and waters. We need stronger policies that redirect industrial solar facilities towards already-developed lands and the built environment. Land use decisions need to stay local. Vote NO on SB697 (VanValkenburg)

Decisions should be the responsibility of the lical governing boards. Please vote No!!

The power of our local government should not be stepped on by this bill. Give local leaders the ability to make decisions for us residents on these issues. A review for solar projects on a case by case basis in separate localities will prevent conditions that may be overlooked in at the state level. Companies are trying to get investments fast because the market for solar is good, but what happens after prices rise and projects are rushed into development? We need to let our local government and citizens have a say in case by case applicants because if the state is bombarded with applicants trying to speed approvals and counties that oppose these projects are not heard, it will be a travesty to our democracy.

Please vote no on SB697. Local governments should decide what projects should occur in their communities, including solar farms. Solar farms are known to be harmful to the land, so local people who know more about the area and have a good idea about how solar farms would impact their community, should have the right to determine if these solar farms should be allowed. Please allow local people to have a say in how their towns will be impacted by keeping this power in their hands rather than in the hands of the state.

As Mayor of The Town of Wakefield Virginia and the Wakefield Town Council, we are opposed to the development of the proposed solar panel farm surrounding our community. The state should have no say so in what The Town of Wakefield, its citizens and local community opposes, pertaining to solar panels. The only ones that will benefit from this project are those that will receive funding by implementing these solar panel farms to be built. The solar panel project will be less than 1 half mile from the towns current town limits prohibiting the town of any future annexation and/or future economical growth. A four to eight thousand acre solar panel farm will not benefit nor produce any jobs for the surrounding community and The Town of Wakefield. We, as The Town of Wakefield, oppose bill # SB697

Please vote no on SB697. This bill takes away the rights of local people to determine how land in their area should be utilized. It has been proven that solar energy can be detrimental to communities, especially rural communities where solar harms surrounding land. It should be up to local governments to determine how land should be used in those communities because the people whom it directly affects knows more about their area than the state. Please allow the people whom solar farms directly and negatively impact determine what they would like to see in their own communities.

Dear legislators and servants of the citizens of Virginia, The Friends of the Meherrin River would like to express to you that we are well aware of the the failures of the existing solar projects here in Southside Virginia and elsewhere in our state. We have three projects in Mecklenburg County Va. , an environmental justice area, that have caused extensive, ongoing erosion issues that have not yet been resolved for three years. Another project has malfunctioning panels and has not produced the power expected and also, currently unresolved for two years. The citizens here have have made it clear to their representatives that they do not want any new projects in their area due to these failures. We are well aware that there are more counties in Virginia opposing these projects than allowing them to date. This bill appears to be a usurping of the will of the people and their right to representative government, a changing of the rules to suit the will of others, regardless of the will of the people and clear, well publicized, data on the failures of renewable energy that is unmistakable. We respectfully ask you to let the decisions on siting renewables be left to the county representatives who are accountable to their constituents in this representative republic that we citizens have the right to continue to enjoy. Thank you, Friends of the Meherrin River

SB697, pushes aside responsible solar development at the detriment of several key stakeholders, traditional rule of law, and environmental concerns. The bill appears to serve the interests of solar developers without clear benefits to the broader community. Communities must have the freedom to address environmental, aesthetic, and land-use characteristics without arbitrary limitations. By fixating on a rigid four percent threshold, SB697 neglects the nuanced environmental considerations crucial for sustainable solar deployment. Localities require the flexibility to tailor regulations based on ecological contexts, including biodiversity, wildlife habitats, and other site-specific concerns. Local governments should retain the authority to enforce additional safety measures based on circumstances to ensure the well-being of residents! Is it not irresponsible to Fast-tracking Before 2025 Requirement? SB697 jeopardizes the 2025 requirement for solar panels to be classified as impervious by the DEQ, essential for Chesapeake Bay watershed protection. Fast-tracking projects without this critical classification poses environmental risks. Why the rush???? Even Dominion Energy Opposes! Notably, even industry giant Dominion Energy opposes SB697. This dissent from a major player underscores the bill's potential negative implications. These risks override local concerns and environmental considerations. We need a balanced approach, emphasizing local control and flexibility in tandem with sustainable energy solutions. With an ongoing Virginia Tech study evaluating best practices for industrial solar, it is imperative to withhold legislative action until the results of this comprehensive research are available.

Please stop the solar farm from coming to Arvonia/New Canton area in Buckingham Va. Our Board of Supervisors don't care anything from this area of Buckingham. We found out the company for the solar farm is from India. They paid a church $5000 to vote for the solar farm. The had 172 yes votes but there was a partition for 500 votes for no. I believe our Board of Supervisors was paid to pass the Solar farm. Please help us and STOP the Solar farm. Thank you

Please vote no on this bill. As a lifetime citizen of Virginia, I feel this is an absolute and total imposition against everything that our Commonwealth has established on self governing. It is wrong on so many levels and very importantly does not take into account the different circumstances of each unique county. This place where I live, the Page Valley and the greater Shenandoah Valley contain some of the most productive farmland, beautiful landscapes and view-sheds and historic resources in Virginia. This bill clearly threatens all of it to the point of no return. This bill proposes against everything Virginia has ever stood for. Who in sound mind would render this? We must have the right to govern ourselves and create our ordinances the way we citizens see fit in our own communities. Today our localities may be imposed basically unregulated industrial utility size solar. If this passes, what else will it be tomorrow?

I oppose SB697. Please vote no. Industrial solar siting decisions should be controlled by the local governments not the state legislature. There are unique environmental issues in each county that need to be considered when siting facilities. The local governments influenced by local citizens should make these decisions not the state legislature.

I oppose the aim and language of this bill. Local municipalities should be the controlling authority and have the right to 'site' or not 'site' solar facilities as representatives of local residents and their voices.

Please allow the localities to decide for or against Solar “Farms”. Local citizens will bear the brunt of the so called solar “farms” do that near by cities can get cheaper electricity. This is so unfair!!! Keep decisions local!!!

Please vote down SB697. Rural planning and land usage for each county should remain with local government. This is a bill that will negatively impact rural communities throughout Virginia. Each county should have the authority to shape their community based on the interests of the local residents rather than a statewide quota to reach an energy goal set by the state without regard to the unique qualities of each county. Again I ask you to vote down SB 697 and leave land control to localities.

Please vote no on SN697. Why are the rural areas targeted for all this solar? It is not good for the environment. They create erosion and put chemicals in the soil. It has been proven at local government meetings that the majority of people in rural Virginia do not want solar.

This bill along with 567 and HB 636 requires dismantling. In Buckingham, we already allocated 7500 acres for solar. This bill would argue that we would have to include some 12000 acres under panels before the County would even comment on it., This is total overreach. The county decides land use and that is where these decisions belong. Please stop the overreach. Peter Kapuscinski Buckingham County, VA

These decisions need to remain on the local level in all circumstances.

Please vote no to this bill! How land should be used is a local matter not a state matter.

I am vigorously opposed to this bill. Land use decisions should be made locally, especially when it comes to solar facilities. In 2022 the Va. Gen. Assembly voted to require solar developers to avoid, minimize, and mitigate their impact on prime farm and forestland when choosing locations. However the overwhelming majority of utility-scale solar facilities in Virginia continue to be on farm and forest land. Only local boards of supervisors should be making the decision on how land in their jurisdiction is being used to meet their comprehensive plans and needs of the community. It makes absolutely no sense to cut down hundreds, even thousands, of acres of trees so a solar installation can be built when , according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and produces four tons of oxygen. This bill needs to be defeated. It is wrong to have this decision-making ability taken away from local boards of supervisors.

Please vote NO on this bill. Local officials need the authority to control land use decisions in their own counties. Citizens for Responsible Solar (CfRS), a 501c4 organization, was created in 2019 to oppose utility-scale solar projects proposed for agricultural land in Culpeper, VA. We successfully preserved historic farm and timberland from multiple solar power plants and worked with the county to adopt a solar policy and ordinance that laid out the guidelines for acceptable solar projects. CfRS does not oppose solar. We advocate for the adoption of "responsible" policies that site utility-scale solar on industrial-zoned land, marginal or contaminated land (brownfields), along highways, and on commercial and residential rooftops. The industrialization of farm and timberland is NOT green. Since its founding in 2019, CfRS has heard from hundreds of citizens in VA and across the country who are desperately trying to protect their homes, their communities, and the environment from industrialization. Utility-scale solar plants are not "farms" and they do not belong on rural land. Too many times, I've seen developers take advantage of rural communities and citizens through unfair and aggressive tactics, and make promises that can't be kept. I've also documented environmental disasters. Local governments must maintain the authority to decide land use policies that best suit their communities. To meet renewable energy goals, the Commonwealth should incentivize development on brownfields and rooftops. Studies such as this one show that nature can be protected while pursuing renewable energy: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/932be293f1af43c8b776fdad24d9f071?fbclid=IwAR3jFJwZ6Eq2i7Qtrsbs92LbwAAciC3mi0PbVot0AasLkw4EvlM9jk8d0mY Again, vote NO on this bill. Susan Ralston

What solar panels will provide vs the damage to farmland just doesn't make sense. We have given up so much of our food sources to other countries, I just can't support eliminating farmland nor the loss of employment for so many entities that depend on farming. I truly believe this is a bad decision for today and even more so for the future. Please vote no.

Land use should be a local issue. It should not be decided in Richmond!

As a resident and concerned citizen of rural Greensville County, I respectfully ask that you respect the voices of the people in communities across the Commonwealth and vote NO on SB 697. Please push back against the efforts of solar proponents to subvert and override the decisions of local residents and our governing boards. The people, through our duly elected officials, must retain the right and the responsibility to make the decisions regarding land use in the communities where we live.

i oppose this bill do not pass

 Dear Legislators, I am a citizen and resident of Page county,Virginia. We have spent the last 4 years crafting an ordinance to address the industrial solar issue here in the Shenandoah Valley. We feel that our ordinance both protects our county and citizens from rampant predatory developers who do not live here,and have will not have to live with the huge industrial power plants that they want to impose on our farmland. This bill, which absolutely removes the local authority from the siting process, is being driven by representatives who also do not live here. When reps elected by one district seek to impose their will on others who do not reside in their district, that is the definition of tyranny in it's base form. To have the SCC, who are NOT elected by the citizens, choose arbitrarily to permit industrial facilities that will not impact them but have life changing consequences for those on the receiving end,is unconscionable. These bills would not exist except for the fact that rural communities have shown that these huge installations do not fit into our comprehensive plans or way of life and we are not blindly accepting the destruction of our beautiful valley for the shell game that is industrial solar and wind. To quote Warren Buffet..." if it were not for the federal subsidies,these projects could not exist". There is a very small percentage of Earth's surface suitable for growing food, but many areas to place solar facilities that will not impact farmland. Until all the data centers,government buildings,schools,brownfields and parking lots are covered with solar panels, please stay off the agricultural land, and leave the land use decisions to the folks who live here. Thank you!

I am asking you to vote no on bill SB 697. I feel that local government officials and its citizens should have their say in the area that they represent and live. Why do we elect our local government officials who represent the counties in which we live and then be overruled by our state government? Our local officials listen to the people in which they serve and vote accordingly. Our various counties should not be governed by the state, but by our elected officers of each county. Again, I ask you to please vote no for SB697.

I am expressing by opposition to SB697 and asking that each of you vote NO on this bill. Greensville County, where I reside has been a dumping ground for the solar industry since 2018. Our rural farmland has been permanently damage and the rural character of Hicksford District, Greensville County, has been negatively changed by multiple industrial scale solar facilities and the massive infrastructure that accompanies these facilities. This bill is intended to further harm southern counties while deterring these solar facilities away from the larger northern counties. The SCC has no right to control our future economic development. Please vote NO on SB697

Do not concur with this bill as written. Solar panel land usage decisions should remain local. Please vote no!

Do not concur with this bill as written. Solar panel land usage should remain local. Please vote no!

My family experienced the traumatic upheaval of being compelled to leave our ancestral homes in the mountains of Virginia, and sacrifice to make way for the creation of the Skyline Drive. The construction of this scenic roadway, designed to showcase the breathtaking beauty of the Blue Ridge Mountains, exacted a heavy toll on us and others who had called these slopes home for generations. The imposition of eminent domain and the unstoppable force of progress forced us to say goodbye to the landscapes that held the memories of our forebears. The emotional trauma of leaving behind our cherished grounds was accompanied by the practical challenges of finding new homes and rebuilding our lives. As the machinery of progress reshaped the mountains into a tourist destination, my family and I carried the weight of history, our stories echoing through the windswept ridges that had once cradled our lives. AND NOW YOU SEEK TO DO IT AGAIN. SB697 presents a grave threat to local autonomy and environmental stewardship. By restricting a locality's authority to regulate ground-mounted solar facilities until an arbitrary threshold is met, the bill undermines the fundamental principle of self-governance. Local communities should have the unequivocal right to shape their own environmental, aesthetic, and land-use policies without being shackled by rigid statewide mandates. SB697's failure to define "reasonable" leaves room for interpretation discrepancies between locales and solar developers, exemplified by their dubious attempt to classify panels as impervious. This lack of clarity introduces a concerning level of ambiguity that jeopardizes the integrity of local decision-making. Furthermore, SB697 recklessly fast-tracks solar projects without adhering to the critical 2025 requirement for solar panels to be classified by the Virginia DEQ as impervious, essential for safeguarding the Chesapeake Bay watershed. By prioritizing expediency over environmental responsibility, the bill places the ecological health of our region at risk. Even Dominion Energy, a major industry player, opposes this ill-conceived legislation, as reported by the Virginia Mercury. Such dissent from a key stakeholder underscores the bill's fundamental flaws. In essence, SB697 serves as a myopic boon, and the shell game that is carbon credits exclusively for solar developers, disregarding the broader well-being of our communities and the environment. This opposition staunchly advocates for the rejection of SB697 and urges a reconsideration that prioritizes local control, environmental sustainability, and the safeguarding of our precious natural resources.

I am OPPOSED to Senate Bill 697. Land-use decisions should be made by local officials who are accountable to their constituents.

Vote no on this bill. Warren County does not want local governing authority usurped by carpetbaggers from the North. Truly, we are sick and tired of it. The bill is anti-democratic and patronizing-- as if the state knows better than we do what to do and where to do it. A one-size bill like this one is inappropriate and should be defeated.

I am OPPOSED to Senate Bill 697. Land-use decisions should be made by local officials who are accountable to their constituents.

This is a correction to my previous comment. I stated Vote now in my previous comment. I want to make the correction to Vote no.

I’m urging you to vote now on this bill. The power of the people belongs in the peoples hands. Not in the hands of rich men in Richmond. Our county fought for three years in opposition of large scale solar. We are primarily an agricultural and tourism driven county. With the alarming rate of farmland Being destroyed or sold it’s important that we preserve every bit of farmland impossible. Our county created a very good solar ordinance. We the people did that It’s also important that we protect our tourism industry. People will come here for wide open spaces. If the rich men in Richmond want to have more solar, how about putting solar panels on all the buildings and parking lots in high density areas.

I wish to express my opposition to the passage of SB697. This bill takes away the authority of local governing bodies to make land use decisions based on what is best for their locality and their residents. Land use should be determined by those directly affected, not by the state legislature. Local governing bodies and the citizens they represent understand the economic, cultural, and environmental nuances of the local area and the effects land use has on the local economy and environment while considering the unique culture of each local area. Thus, the local governing bodies representing their local citizens should make these decisions, not government officials at the state level. The local citizens will have to live with these land use decisions, therefore, their local government representatives should be empowered to make these decisions at the local level. I ask that you please vote No on SB697.

I am asking you to vote no on bill SB 697. It is very important that local government officials and its citizens have their say in the area that they represent and live. We elect and put our faith and trust in those that we have elected. We certainly do not want someone else representing, speaking or voting on a bill we have voted no on or representing us on issues we have no voice in. One size does not fit all. Thank you for voting “no” on bill SB697.

SB697 Solar facility sites and scale/size must be the decision of the people who live there.-----not of distant legislators and corporate lobbyists. This SB697 proposal is unacceptable : "Solar and energy facilities; local regulation. Prohibits a locality from including in an ordinance (i) limits on the total amount, density, or size of any ground-mounted solar facility or energy storage facility until such time that the total area under panels within the locality exceeds four percent of the total area within the locality or (ii) any prohibitions on the use of solar panels that comply with generally accepted national environmental protection and product safety standards, provided that such installation is in compliance with any provisions of a local ordinance that establishes criteria and requirements for siting."

I implore you to not pass SB 697, as it strips my rights as a citizen, as well as my county to determine the size, density, and siting of solar installations, and their imposition on our local environments. Even worse, this bill works to override local ordinances and moratoriums that we localities determined was in our best interests. I strongly believe that a moratorium be placed upon the solar industry and further development, which has already devastated thousands of Virginia acres of farm and forest land, and has caused detrimental effects to our waterways and Chesapeake Bay. It is quite obvious this bill is being pushed by the solar industry lobby, and is only serving their financial interests, and not protecting the health and safety of Virginia citizens.

Please oppose this very flawed and frankly abusive bill. Local governments should remain in control of the ordinances regarding solar utilities as they work out what is the best for their localities and their citizens. All counties are different in demographics, industries, wealth, topography and it is wrong and dangerous to impose “a one size fits all and controls them all” bill. It is unAmerican and it sets a foot print of tyranny on the necks of mostly poor rural communities.

Please oppose SB697. It would remove the long lasting power of localities to regulate land use. Page County has struggled to keep out mega solar fields because of poor siting and sizing of projects that would have affected our two main economic drivers: farming and tourism, and brought few advantages to offset that impact. There was much opposition in our county. This lead to a carefully considered and crafted solar ordinance. Please don’t render all this hard work void by nullifying our voices and votes with a blanket bill that does not take into account the variety of landscapes and economic conditions of many rural counties which always seem to bear the brunt of policies that may on their face seem beneficial to the Commonwealth. Thank you for your consideration. .

Legislators should try to understand, work with Virginia’s rural communities on issues that come with solar farms. Please reconsider this and other bills to stop localities from protecting those communities and their lands that they know best.

Opposition to SB697: A Threat to Local Autonomy and Environmental Integrity SB697, while ostensibly championing the widespread adoption of solar and energy facilities, raises significant red flags that demand a forceful opposition. 1. Loss of Local Control: The bill's imposition of restrictions on a locality's ability to regulate ground-mounted solar facilities until a specific threshold is reached (four percent of the total area) undermines local autonomy. Communities must have the freedom to address environmental, aesthetic, and land-use characteristics without arbitrary limitations. 2. Environmental Impact: By fixating on a rigid four percent threshold, SB697 neglects the nuanced environmental considerations crucial for sustainable solar deployment. Localities require the flexibility to tailor regulations based on ecological contexts, including biodiversity, wildlife habitats, and other site-specific concerns. 3. Community Aesthetics: This fails to acknowledge the potential visual disruptions caused by large-scale solar facilities. Neglecting community aesthetics raises legitimate concerns among residents and businesses about property values and the overall appeal of the area. 4. Safety Concerns: While claiming compliance with national standards, the bill falls short in addressing local safety concerns. Local governments should retain the authority to enforce additional safety measures based on circumstances to ensure the well-being of residents. 5. Infrastructure Strain: SB697 overlooks the potential strain on local infrastructure caused by widespread solar facility deployment. Upgrades to the power grid may become necessary, and the bill lacks provisions for addressing the financial burden of such upgrades and the added costs associated with that are passed onto the communities. 6. Land Use Conflict: The bill lacks guidance on potential conflicts with other land uses, allowing ground-mounted solar facilities to potentially compete with agricultural land or recreational areas. Localities should have the authority to prioritize land use based on their specific needs. 7. - Undefined Notions of Reasonable: The bill lacks clarity by not defining "reasonable," creating ambiguity that may differ between locales and solar developers, as exemplified by the Page County Cape project's attempt to classify panels as impervious. 8. Fast-tracking Before 2025 Requirement: SB697 jeopardizes the 2025 requirement for solar panels to be classified as impervious by the DEQ, essential for Chesapeake Bay watershed protection. Fast-tracking projects without this critical classification pose environmental risks. 9. Even Dominion Energy Opposes: Notably, even industry giant Dominion Energy opposes SB697. This dissent from a major player underscores the bill's potential negative implications. 10. Exclusively Benefiting Solar Developers: The bill appears to serve the interests of solar developers without clear benefits to the broader community. These risks override local concerns and environmental considerations. This opposition asserts the need for a balanced approach, emphasizing local control and flexibility in tandem with sustainable energy solutions. With an ongoing Virginia Tech study evaluating best practices for industrial solar, it is imperative to withhold legislative action until the results of this comprehensive research are available.

Vote no. Page county has passed a solar ordinance and don t need the state telling it how to run county zoning.

This flawed bill states that localities can review industrial solar facilities and make decisions based on reasonable criteria, without specifying what "reasonable criteria" may be. Definitions of "reasonable" will differ between county and solar developer. For instance, in Page County, where I live, an industrial solar developer introduced 2 projects. One was approved, the other was not approved, was resubmitted, and then withdrawn pending denial. The DEQ -required engineering report for the first project (Dogwood), paid for by the solar developer, stated that the project could put wells as far as 10 miles away at risk. For the second project (Cape Solar), the planning commission recommended that the panels be classified as impervious, in order to help protect against run off, a significant problem for this region's karst topography. The solar developer felt that this was cost-prohibitive, even though it would help prevent sinkhole eruption (the proposed site had major formations) and damage to adjacent properties. It is important to note that, as of 2025, all solar panels in industrial facilities will be classified as impervious. My fear is that solar companies are rushing (and will be enabled by this bill) to rush projects into the pipeline before this new rule, designed to protect the Chesapeake Bay Wateshed, goes into effect. This is a bill that will not benefit anyone except industrial scale solar developers. Even Dominion Energy opposes it, as noted in an article in the "Virginia Mercury, ""In Virginia, new debates over who gets the final say on solar projects" February 12. Please reject this bill. Thank you. Cathy Herbert Luray, VA