The Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance is the leading voice in Virginia addressing sexual and domestic violence, representing over 70 agencies across the Commonwealth. Many of our member agencies provide critical services to victims of human trafficking. We strongly believe that increased training and education are essential to effectively combat human trafficking. For these reasons, we are in full support of this bill.

This charter change HB1687 reflects a decennial redistricting ordinance passed by our Virginia Beach City Council. This charter change was approved by a prior 9 - 1 Virginia Beach City Council vote. This charter change was approved in 2023 by our AG Jason Miyares and has been in use ever since. This charter change was approved by the 2024 General Assembly, both the House and Senate. This charter change is supported by over 80% of the voters of Virginia Beach, per a study conducted by the Weldon-Cooper Center. There are many cities across the United States, some the same size as VB, some larger, which are effectively governed by City Councils elected using Single Member Districts. Some of these cities have a singular area of economic interest, which is effectively managed by their Single Member District City Councils. A few of our VBCC members have recently expressed uncertainty as to how to govern here. They have many examples of successful City Councils across our country to draw from. Then again, with passage of this charter change I suspect they will be quick to figure it out. I urge this committee to support this bill.

Please stop turning Virginia into another California, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Illinois. They are a mess because of leftist agenda. So many people have left Northern Virginia for the same reasons. Why are some of you still using illogical policies? The middle class has been destroyed by the leftist government. Why don’t you stop the hurtful agenda and work with all American citizens and the administration instead of trying to divide us again. This is why many find today’s progressive policies irresponsible. By the way, who allowed our monuments, statues , and businesses to be destroyed? Who wanted to defund the police? It was not the common sense law abiding citizens and leaders. Equality, Liberty for all Virginia.

As a fifth-generation Military family member, we have witnessed over 238 Military Funerals. There are no words that can describe the look of the mother or wife of a fallen soldier as the Officer in Charge kneels to present her with the National flag and the words " On behalf of the President of the United States and a grateful Nation," the families are trying so very hard to remain strong in the face of such total devastation of their lives. While a monument to their fallen loved ones may add only a tiny bit of solace, it is a reminder to us all of our dedication and recommitment to those we send to defend and protect us all and the oath all soldiers take "to protect and defend us against all enemies, foreign and domestic." To Protect these material reminders from random violence and abuse with a strengthening of existing legislation, as proposed in this bill, is without political motivation and is in the interest of all Americans and the Gold Star families who have endured the last measure of family sacrifice.

I am very against this bill which allows conversion of at-large to single-member districts under voting rights court orders. Local Autonomy: This undermines local governance by imposing structural changes without current community input. Voting Rights Act: It might not align with Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) criteria for addressing vote dilution. Representation Impact: Single-member districts could reduce diversity in representation, as seen in Davis v. Bandemer (1986). Shaw v. Reno Precedent: Risks racial gerrymandering, potentially leading to legal issues as in Shaw v. Reno (1993). Erosion of At-Large Benefits: Loses the broad perspective at-large systems provide, contrary to Holder v. Hall (1994). Gerrymandering Risk: Transition could lead to gerrymandering, a concern in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). Governance Disruption: Allows current members to finish terms, potentially disrupting governance. Administrative Burden: Redistricting and elections impose significant costs and effort. Representation Principle: Challenges achieving fair representation as per Reynolds v. Sims (1964). Community Cohesion: Might fragment community unity by narrowing political focus. I oppose this for undermining local control, complicating fair representation, and risking community cohesion, advocating for a more inclusive approach to electoral reform.

Please vote for HB1990. I am a voter in Virginia Beach. The transformation of our local elections since moving to single member districts has been amazing. Residents agree that our members of City Council are much more responsive now. People feel a stronger connection to their representative. This has been an extremely beneficial change.

The committee should not lessen the number of days for a second public hearing notice. Community members should have the full seven days which is not much time to begin with. There are numerous reasons why the days should not be shortened including their need to to change their schedule in order to attend or hire a sitter or prepare for the meeting as planning and zoning is complicated and many times impacts a block, neighborhood and sometimes the entire community. The community members are already on the short end as these meetings are not publicized well enough and the developers and lawyers representing them know all details and have already been working with the town in preparation and payment of fees, etc. Further, in many cases the attorneys and sometimes the developers have worked on other projects that have been before either or both boards. Please show the community members the respect they deserve and keep the full seven days as is. It is important that the community does not feel railroaded into irreversible decisions. Thank you.

I am against the change to reduce the public hearing notice period from seven to five days for planning and zoning actions. Here are my concerns: Reduced Public Awareness: A shorter notice period might not give the community sufficient time to become aware of and engage with the proposed changes, potentially reducing public participation in local governance, which is crucial for democratic processes. Legal Precedents: Cases like Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) emphasize the importance of adequate notice in administrative proceedings to ensure due process. Reducing the notice period could be seen as contrary to ensuring fair notice and opportunity for public input. Potential for Misinformation: With less time, there's a higher risk that misinformation or lack of information could spread, leading to public misunderstanding or opposition based on incomplete knowledge of the proposals. Community Involvement: Effective community involvement requires time for residents to review plans, discuss them, and organize if necessary. Five days might not be enough, especially for complex zoning changes that require detailed consideration. Work Days and Weekends Issue: The bill does not distinguish between work days and weekends, which could lead to confusion: If the 5th day before the meeting falls on a weekend or a day when offices are closed, this could mean that the notice might not be effectively communicated if published on a non-business day, potentially excluding those who do not check local government notices regularly outside of work hours. This oversight could undermine the purpose of public notice, which is to ensure broad community awareness. Administrative Burden: While the intention might be to reduce costs, the change could actually increase administrative confusion or require additional steps to ensure notices are published on business days, potentially offsetting any savings. I strongly oppose this legislation due to concerns over reduced public engagement, potential legal issues, misinformation risks, insufficient time for community involvement, and the lack of consideration for non-business days in the notice publication, advocating for maintaining or even extending the current notice period to better serve democratic principles and community interests.

Mecklenburg County supports the amendment to Section 15.2 - 2204.A. contained in HB 1996. While we appreciate the intent of the changes made by the last two sessions of the General Assembly to standardize public notices throughout the Code, we believe, from experience, that this last change to zoning notices (implementing a seven-day end-window) frustrates rather than enhances public notice. In many areas of the Commonwealth, newspapers publish once a week. In our area, our papers publish on Wednesday. With Monday Board meetings, we are unable to publish the second notice in the paper in the edition leading up to the meeting, when people are most apt to be looking for what will be on the Board’s agenda. Since the second notice should be a reminder notice, we believe it serves the public interest to have that reminder notice in the paper immediately preceding the meeting. A reversion to the five-day end-window, as existed prior to 2023, would allow for this in our case. This change still allows for advance notice to be placed in time to put the meeting on one's calendar via the first notice, so it would not reduce the information provided to the public. Rather, the change most meets the public when they need notice.

As a lifelong Virginia resident I support HB2012 so we can incentivize productions to bring work to our great Commonwealth. Thank you for your consideration.

I am writing in support of HB2012 which is needed to strengthen Virginia's film industry. As a life-long Virginia resident and constituent, I urge you to approve this bill. Film projects create thousands of highly-skilled local jobs and support small businesses in our communities. Members of my household have worked on several acclaimed projects filmed in our great state. Making Virginia's film industry stronger will help fellow residents like me and my family while also boosting our economy.

Dear Delegates, Please support HB2012. I am one of many Virginia technicians who have full time careers working on film and television projects filmed in our great commonwealth. We take great pride in the industry we've worked so hard to grow. Without your support there won't be a film industry in Virginia. Thank you for your support.

I support HB2012. My name is Jeanne Bishop, I’m a Virginia resident, film crew worker in the costume dept. and member of IATSE Local 487. Film production is vital to not only keeping Virginians working but also supporting our local businesses which provide a great percentage of our goods and services . Thank you for your time and consideration of this important bill.

My name is Susan Sutphin and I am an Art Department Coordinator from Chesterfield, VA. Thank you for your support for HB2012

I support HB2012. I am a film industry professional, IATSE Local 487 member and work in the Locations Department on set.

Statement of the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Support of HB 2037 The Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (VASWCD) is a private nonprofit association of 47 soil and water conservation districts in Virginia. The Association provides and promotes leadership in the conservation of natural resources through stewardship and education programs. It coordinates conservation efforts statewide to focus effectively on issues identified by local member districts. Our mission is to serve and strengthen soil and water conservation districts in the stewardship of natural resources. We are very concerned with the loss of prime farmland and forest to utility scale solar developments in Virginia. Utility scale solar development has significant land use implications. According to a just released study by Virginia Commonwealth University, commissioned by the Virginia Department of Energy, over the last four years Virginia has lost 15,000 acres of forest to utility scale solar projects, and 12,000 acres of farmland. The loss of trees is particularly concerning given the Commonwealth’s obligations under the Chesapeake Bay agreement to plant 48,000 acres of new trees. This puts Virginia significantly in the red when it comes to complying with the Chesapeake Bay agreement forestry component. We think it is far preferable to install solar energy facilities on rooftops, parking lots, and land that has already been disturbed. At the December 2024 annual meeting of the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the Association unanimously expressed opposition to any legislation that would restrict a County government’s current authority to make land use decisions with respect to rejecting or approving industrial utility scale solar projects within the County. Instead, we believe it is much better policy to give County government more authority to promote solar development on parking lots, such as would be accomplished by Delegate Bulova’s HB 2037. We support HB 2037, patroned by Delegate Bulova. The bill would allow local governments more leverage in dealing with developers to secure commitments from those developers to install photovoltaic panels on parking lots associated with the developments. We feel it is appropriate to empower local governments to take actions to improve the environmental quality of their communities. We urge the Committee to promptly take positive action on HB 2037.

Statement of the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Support of HB 2037 The Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (VASWCD) is a private nonprofit association of 47 soil and water conservation districts in Virginia. The Association provides and promotes leadership in the conservation of natural resources through stewardship and education programs. It coordinates conservation efforts statewide to focus effectively on issues identified by local member districts. Our mission is to serve and strengthen soil and water conservation districts in the stewardship of natural resources. We are very concerned with the loss of prime farmland and forest to utility scale solar developments in Virginia. Utility scale solar development has significant land use implications. According to a just released study by Virginia Commonwealth University, commissioned by the Virginia Department of Energy, over the last four years Virginia has lost 15,000 acres of forest to utility scale solar projects, and 12,000 acres of farmland. The loss of trees is particularly concerning given the Commonwealth’s obligations under the Chesapeake Bay agreement to plant 48,000 acres of new trees. This puts Virginia significantly in the red when it comes to complying with the Chesapeake Bay agreement forestry component. We think it is far preferable to install solar energy facilities on rooftops, parking lots, and land that has already been disturbed. At the December 2024 annual meeting of the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the Association unanimously expressed opposition to any legislation that would restrict a County government’s current authority to make land use decisions with respect to rejecting or approving industrial utility scale solar projects within the County. Instead, we believe it is much better policy to give County government more authority to promote solar development on parking lots, such as would be accomplished by Delegate Bulova’s HB 2037. We support HB 2037, patroned by Delegate Bulova. The bill would allow local governments more leverage in dealing with developers to secure commitments from those developers to install photovoltaic panels on parking lots associated with the developments. We feel it is appropriate to empower local governments to take actions to improve the environmental quality of their communities. We urge the Committee to promptly take positive action on HB 2037.

I highly support this bill and thank the Delegate for sponsoring it. Solar canopies on parking lots are a win-win proposition and have shown success in other states. Solar on parking lots is a great dual use for spaces that are already paved, reducing demand on other lands. This bill allows individual localities to decide whether or not to require solar canopies and whether or not to provide bonuses. The localities most likely to require such canopies are in the urban areas driving most of the increases in energy need; therefore this bill helps those areas to share in mitigating this increase.

I am in favor of this bill which updates the charter of the Town of Buchanan in Botetourt County to align with current state laws and modernize town governance. Election Synchronization: By shifting municipal elections to November, this bill synchronizes Buchanan's election schedule with the general election calendar, potentially increasing voter turnout and simplifying the electoral process for residents, enhancing democratic participation. Modernization of Governance: Updating the town manager's residency requirements reflects contemporary standards, ensuring flexibility in hiring the best candidate for the role, regardless of where they live, which can attract more qualified individuals to serve the town. Streamlined Administration: Requiring the town manager to appoint the town clerk streamlines the administrative process, centralizing decision-making within the town's executive branch, which can lead to more efficient town operations. Repeal of Outdated Provisions: The repeal of provisions relating to the appointment of commissioners of the Redevelopment and Housing Authority removes outdated or redundant sections from the charter, simplifying legal frameworks and reducing potential confusion or overlap in governance roles. Legal Compliance: This bill ensures that the Town of Buchanan's charter complies with general state law, avoiding potential legal conflicts or challenges due to discrepancies between local and state regulations. Community Benefit: These updates are likely to benefit the community by aligning local governance with state practices, improving administrative efficiency, and ensuring that town leadership reflects current needs and standards, fostering a more responsive and effective local government. I support this legislation for its alignment with state laws, enhancement of voter participation, modernization of town governance, administrative efficiency, legal clarity, and overall community benefit.

Please stop turning Virginia into another California, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Illinois. They are a mess because of leftist agenda. So many people have left Northern Virginia for the same reasons. Why are some of you still using illogical policies? The middle class has been destroyed by the leftist government. Why don’t you stop the hurtful agenda and work with all American citizens and the administration instead of trying to divide us again. This is why many find today’s progressive policies irresponsible. By the way, who allowed our monuments, statues , and businesses to be destroyed? Who wanted to defund the police? It was not the common sense law abiding citizens and leaders. Equality, Liberty for all Virginia.

Please stop turning Virginia into another California, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Illinois. They are a mess because of leftist agenda. So many people have left Northern Virginia for the same reasons. Why are some of you still using illogical policies? The middle class has been destroyed by the leftist government. Why don’t you stop the hurtful agenda and work with all American citizens and the administration instead of trying to divide us again. This is why many find today’s progressive policies irresponsible. By the way, who allowed our monuments, statues , and businesses to be destroyed? Who wanted to defund the police? It was not the common sense law abiding citizens and leaders. Equality, Liberty for all Virginia.

Please reject HB2175, which would lead to housing shortages in the long run by authorizing rent-control ordinances. 93% of economists oppose rent control, in a poll of the American Economic Association. Economists think rent control shrinks the amount of housing available. HB 2175 would authorize rigid rent control ordinances that can't even allow rents to be properly adjusted for inflation when inflation exceeds 3%. When rent increases are limited to less than inflation, housing providers cut back on maintenance and improvements, according to studies and surveys. By cutting property values, rent control can shrink the tax revenue that funds schools and local governments. It also shrinks housing production: The Montgomery Perspective reported that six developers stopped housing projects when a county government imposed rent control. [THIS COMMENT CHANGES A WORD IN MY PRIOR COMMENT, TO REFLECT THE AMENDMENT TO THE BILL APPARENTLY MADE BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE. THANKS!].

Please reject HB2175, which would lead to housing shortages in the long run by authorizing rent-control ordinances. 93% of economists oppose rent control, in a poll of the American Economic Association. Economists think rent control shrinks the amount of housing available. HB 2175 would authorize rigid rent control ordinances that can't even allow rents to be properly adjusted for inflation when inflation exceeds 7%. When rent increases are limited to less than inflation, housing providers cut back on maintenance and improvements, according to studies and surveys. By cutting property values, rent control can shrink the tax revenue that funds schools and local governments. It also shrinks housing production: The Montgomery Perspective reported that six developers stopped housing projects when a county government imposed rent control.

Collecting of rent on a working person is a deeply asymmetrical act. We must put a finger on the scales of this asymmetry by legislative wisdom or else risk further corrosion of the load bearing parts of society, the working people, be driven into a corner and abandoned for landlord profit. It's unconscionable to allow the renters to control the market as thoroughly as they do. Anti-rent gouging is an important policy need that we must approve. FOR HB2175

Peace, I am FOR the adoption of local anti-rent gouging ordinances! This would be amazing for thousands of tenants to stop landlords from the ridiculous rent hikes. Year after year tenants that live with same living conditions, or worse off living conditions are being charged more for essentially nothing in exchange. Exspenses are continuously rising & wages are staying the same. It takes more time away from the home to maintain a home that is only half way being lived in so someone else can benefit outside of the home one is taking care of. Its up to the people to look our for the people, you never know when you are going to be the person neededing to be taken care of. Thank you.

I am against this bill which would allow localities to implement their own anti-rent gouging ordinances, as it could lead to several issues: State and Federal Overlap: With existing state and federal price gouging laws, this bill introduces redundancy. Statewide laws provide a consistent framework, whereas local ordinances could create a patchwork of regulations, complicating compliance for landlords operating in multiple jurisdictions. Economic Distortion: Setting a rent increase cap at the lesser of CPI or 7% might not reflect local market dynamics, potentially distorting the housing market by discouraging investment in rental properties or maintenance, leading to a decrease in housing quality or availability. Administrative Burden: The requirement for localities to establish an anti-rent gouging board adds layers of bureaucracy, increasing administrative costs and complexity for local governments, which could divert resources from other essential services. Notice Period: Mandating a two-month notice for rent increases could be impractical in fast-moving markets or for landlords facing sudden increases in their own costs, potentially impacting their financial stability. Exemption Process: The creation of an exemption process through a board could lead to favoritism or inconsistent application of rules, potentially opening the door for legal challenges or perceptions of unfair treatment. Civil Penalties: Imposing civil penalties might deter small landlords or those with limited resources from continuing to rent out properties, reducing the rental housing stock at a time when affordable housing is already scarce. Proposed Amendment to State Law: Given these concerns, I propose an amendment to the existing state price gouging law to address rent increases more effectively: Amendment: Add a provision to the state's price gouging statute that specifically addresses rent increases during emergencies or housing crises. This amendment would: Standardize the Approach: Ensure a uniform state-wide policy on rent increases, avoiding the confusion of local variations. Emergency Triggers: Only activate during declared states of emergency or when a housing crisis is officially recognized by the state, preventing unnecessary regulation during normal market conditions. Cap Based on CPI: Set a cap on rent increases at the annual CPI increase or a fixed percentage (e.g., 5%), whichever is lower, during the specified periods, providing predictability for both tenants and landlords. Notice Requirement: Require landlords to provide at least one month's written notice of any rent increase during these periods, balancing tenant protection with landlord flexibility. Exemptions: Allow for state-level exemptions in cases where landlords can demonstrate significant, unforeseen increases in their operational costs, with a clear, transparent process managed by the state housing authority. Enforcement: Establish state-level enforcement with civil penalties for non-compliance, ensuring consistency and reducing the administrative load on local governments. This amendment would maintain the integrity of the state's regulatory framework, provide protections where they are most needed, and avoid the pitfalls of localized, potentially inconsistent regulations.

My property management company raises rent a minimum of 8% per lease renewal, and I was told that by the manager themselves. I am a social worker working for the state and my annual salary increases have been grossly insufficient. I have questioned whether I will end up homeless because of the increased rent. There is no evidence as to why the rent needs to go up as high as it has; the landlords aren’t required to provide any justification. It is causing families to become homeless; this runs off into increased CPS reports for children, increased mental health and substance use issues, etc. when people lose their homes. I am being “priced out” of the city I have lived in for my entire 27 years of life. Please please consider passing this legislation to protect hard working Virginians who would love to stay here.

This bill is fair to all, landlords and tenants. Providing notice of changes to tenants is practical as well as courteous. In reading the bill, I saw nothing that should keep landlords and all of us from supporting it. I do support it. Thank you.

I am a resident of Louisa County, Virginia. I am deeply concerned that the state is trying to control solar developments and decisions at a state level rather than allowing local citizens and officials to make local decisions for these solar developments. How can such decisions be made as a blanket decision over various localities across the state and each area with its own unique needs? Local citizens and local officials would no longer have control over what would affect their counties. In my opinion this HB2438 is nothing but a power grab to aide power companies to enforce their wills in order to gain more land for their development. I am speaking as a person who has had a first hand extremely negative experience on our family farm where a water way, a creek, downstream from a large solar site has been damaged beyond your greatest imagination. We know 2 holding ponds directly release into this creek and as many as 3 others release into a smaller tributary which flows into this creek. The extreme damage done was due to this ill planned and ill constructed very large solar site upstream from our farm. There were 5 farms with damage from this one site. Our county officials have placed county requirements for solar developments to try to prevent this from happening to other land owners. Local officials need and must have the respect and authority to do what is best for their citizens. In addition to these above concerns, I continue to have grave concerns for the amount of agricultural and forest land these solar developments are consuming. Does anyone in Richmond not see the detrimental effect? Once agricultural land is lost it can never be replaced. Please, I humbly request you vote against this bill and that you speak with many others to vote against it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

I respectfully request you to please oppose this bill. Your voters elected you to represent our interests and we have spoken NO to Industrial Solar facilities and this should be your position on this bill to represent your constituents put their trust in you with their vote to represent their interests.

Deny this bill! Some of the most egregious actions by VA politicians have been allowing energy companies to take land through eminent domain, require Virginian residents to use expensive/unreliable wind and solar, all while they install massive kV towers to bring reliable/affordable energy to Data centers, from other states, that are USING COAL TO POWER THEM. Ratepayers pay for all of this, too.

I believe that land use decisions should be made at local level. Please vote no on this bill.

Please oppose this bill concerning solar projects. Keep the decision with the counties on what’s best for themselves.

Oppose HB 2438: Localities should retain ALL rights and decisions regarding their respective city or counties. These decisions and rights should stay with local city and county governments/peoples.

These counties are too pretty and should be restored for nature instead of solar panels.

This bill proposes a major overreach of state government's authority into local land use decisions. Local people have the right to make these decisions without the threat of having their will overturned by the state. Please vote No on HB2438.

I strongly oppose this and all other proposed legislation that undermine local authority to make land use decisions. Local citizens, competent professionals, and duly elected government officials have the authority and the right to make decisions about how the land in our communities is to be used. Protection of precious agricultural and timber land in our rural communities is important to the long term health and stability of our families and the natural resources over which we are stewards. This attempt to overrule the will of local citizens and usurp local governance authority is an egregious overreach of the state government's authority. Please vote No to HB2438.

I AM A LAND OWNER AND STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL,PLEASE PASS IT, IT BENEFITS THE COUNTY AS WELL AS LANDOWNERS.

Me and my family oppose this .

I oppose this bill. OPPOSE, OPPOSE, OPPOSE! Let the citizens decide! Keep our counties out of the hands of companies that just want government subsidized money to ruin land in our rural communities with no benefit!

I do not think the state should be in control of solar farms. I think the the county should still have control over what happens in that county in regards to solar farms.

Please oppose this bill. This bill is actually worse than the Solar Siting Review board if you can believe that. This bill allows Utility Scale Solar Facilities of any size anywhere in Virginia. Localities cannot limit the size of a project. A county cannot limit the acres used for solar. a county cannot regulate the distance between projects. This is an extreme overreach of power. Please email all members in the House of Delegates Opposing this bill and the Governor

Comments Document

Does not meet requirements that it says it does

I am not in favor of this bill.

These solar projects only take land away and do not produce enough energy to destroy the land.

1) Solar ordinance decisions should remain at the local level. Each locality has its own unique circumstances and localities should retain their decision making and abilities to create their own ordinance. This alone is reason enough to table HB2438. 2) Serious Environmental Justice issues would be violated by HB2438. Citizens would NOT have the opportunity to participate in the development of local solar ordinance. Decisions that forever change the character of a community should remain with that community. Where is the meaningful involvement of all people in decisions that affect them? 3) A one size fits all solar ordinance ignores the differences across the Commonwealth. There is wide variation in community character, citizen goals, topography, watersheds, habitats, agricultural, economics, etc. To impose a state mandated ordinance is unfair and causes damage. 4) Many flaws exist in the model ordinance proposed by HB2438. The following is a partial list of the flaws with brief explanations: -Decommissioning: Subtracting salvage value from the decommissioning bond places undue financial risk on the landowner or entity that will hold the parcel at the solar facilities end of life. There is no way to determine the value of obsolete equipment at some future point in time. In reality there may be a cost incurred for disposal of the material. The only fair bond method is to assume no salvage value. Further, where is the requirement for land reclamation along with the decommissioning? -Completion of land disturbance activities: “An ordinance may require up to 75 percent vegetative cover…” Example: If a county has 15,000 acres of industrial solar facilities and is only permitted by state statute to require a maximum of 75 percent vegetative cover, there would be 3,750 acres WITHOUT vegetative cover. At 150,000 acres of industrial solar, there would be 37,500 acres WITHOUT vegetative cover. -Wildlife corridors: This should not be window dressing. On-site studies of wildlife would be necessary to determine if corridors are adequate and appropriate. Will wildlife actually use the area labeled “wildlife corridor”? These designations are often assigned to areas that cannot be constructed upon, and the “corridor” is a byproduct of development. In reality, huge swaths of habitat are destroyed and nature lost! -Imperviousness: Model ordinance uses phrase “…shall minimize…”. This sounds nice, but in reality, gives the facility free rein to greatly alter a site. Virginia DEQ has reported nearly 70 percent of solar facilities had water issues. -Grading: “…shall be minimized…”. This sounds nice, but in reality, gives the developer free rein to bulldoze and destroy the site. Many facilities across the Commonwealth have seen millions of cubic feet of earth moved. In summary: -A one size fits all statewide solar ordinance is inappropriate and should be rejected. -There are numerous harmful flaws in the wording of HB2438. -Local decisions should continue to be the method of establishing solar ordinances. -Citizen participation is blocked from creation of an ordinance that impacts them, their family, and their community. -Environmental Justice issues exist. Please defeat HB2438

I Oppose HB 2438! Its Should be left to the citizens of The Area to Decide if Solar Projects may be built In There Locality! Solar Industrial sights are a Threat to our Natural Environment, will Harm our Wildlife, Destroy Agricultural Land and Forests ! Solar is a Low production inefficient means of Electric Production! Natural Gas and Micro Nuclear are Better alternatives with higher production and Limited effects to our valuable Land Resources. Also Natural Gas and Micro Nuclear Production would provide more Local Jobs during Construction and Operation!

I OPPOSE HB2438. This bill undermines local control and community-specific decision-making. Each community has unique environmental, and economic considerations that a one-size-fits-all state mandated solar ordinance will ignore. Local governments should continue to have the power to make these decisions that will affect the community they live in.

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO...HE WOULD STAY IN HIS OWN TOWN AND PULL TOGETHER TOSAVE OUR LAND. IT IS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY FOR A FEW BUT LAND BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT COUNTY. AMEN

I am opposed to HB2438 for a number of reasons. Counties/municipalities should have the right to choose if they want to adopt a project or not. This ideology of forcing something on the public is dangerously close to tyranny-as is for example forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Especially, when there are grave environmental concerns regarding the components of said project. I wouldn’t want destroying clean drinking water on my conscience if I were a legislator. I’m for clean but Solar and wind are anything but. Quartzite is used to make panels. Most comes from areas in China using forced labor. The US placed an embargo on imports in 2018- somehow they were lifted in 2023. The Ughurs are still being used as forced labor in this area of China-so what changed? Nothing. Please do not support slave labor

I OPPOSE this legislation which will take away land-use and ordinance decisions from our counties. These decisions should remain at the local level. Solar photovoltaic projects are destroying thousands of acres of Virginia's rural farmland, agricultural land, and forests. Put solar panels on rooftops, brownfields, parking lots, etc. Start in the already built world. One of the goals of the Virginia Clean Economy Act is to protect natural resources for future generations. This legislation will do the opposite.

Please OPPOSE legislation which will take away land-use and ordinance decisions from our counties Thank you, Kenda Hanuman

I strongly OPPOSE legislation which will take away land-use and ordinance decisions from our counties. Local, generational farm families have been, and will continue to be, the best stewards of the land in the long-run, and should be allowed to maintain control over decisions that concern the land and waterways for future generations.

Please oppose Bill H2438. Removing local decisions on thousands of acres of land is extremely difficult to conceive. People choose to move to communities where they can thrive and have their constitutional right to general welfare. Filling up our counties with technologies that will not result in the ultimate goal for solving a perceived energy shortage equates to creating acres of wasteland and leaving it on the taxpayers doorstep. Solar brings noise - 24 hour constant humming, destruction of local roads, unmitigated stormwater damages, unsightly views, personal property damage, and safety issues. All issues left for the county tax payers to deal with. Please oppose Bill H2438.

OPPOSE this bill

I oppose bill HB2438!

OPPOSE, OPPOSE, OPPOSE

I urge you to oppose HB2438 Solar facilities & other land use issues belong at the county level. I am a resident of Buckingham County. I am directly affected by the thousands of rural & agricultural lands being considered for massive INDUSTRAL solar facilities with no to miniscule benefit in comparison to the destruction of our environment.

Please oppose HB2438! Local legislation should decide solar regulation.

It is a Serious mistake to remove oversight of solar policy to the state level.This is a akin to how Stalin nationalized all the people's farms and the whole system got broken. You must leave decisions about solar policy and location to us here Is at our a Albemoral county level. We know the topography and the Sizing issues to maximize This vital energy source. Bureaucrats, in Norfolk or in Southwest Virginia have no business mandating how we array/deploy solar in central virginia. Nor have we any business in their region. Thank you for using common sense and not Deciding solar policy at state level.

I OPPOSE this bill.

I strongly OPPOSE this bill!

Please. Reject HB2438! My family lost their farms due to the overreach of government and taking land to make National Parks – they said it was for the greater good – giving them less than 50 cents per acre. My grandparents and parents never recovered from the financial and devastating mental anguish caused by these actions. And now the state wants to overrule the local governance on land – risking water wells and drinking water for humans and livestock by carpeting the state with solar that is ineffective and riddled with problems and risks to the communities that they occupy. Thus – causing damages to neighboring properties forever, diminishing the property values of anyone in proximity of these monstrosities with their humming and destructive practices. It is shameful that anyone would allow the solar developers’ need/greed for profits above the well-being of the citizens. This bill is a blatant assault on local authority, it’s a gross violation of the principle of subsidiarity and undermines the democratic rights of communities to tailor regulations to their unique needs. The legislation’s dangerous inflexibility in environmental standards risks stagnation and compromises potential eco-friendly alternatives. These bills encourage reckless projects to submit a mad dash for approvals and their subsidies, compromising thorough evaluation and incentivizing the 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 leaves communities vulnerable; this legislation is a grave overreach that jeopardizes local democracy, environmental well-being, and the pursuit of a sustainable energy future. 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 on top of every current and upcoming governmental building, school, shopping mall, and data center before allowing permanent farmland destruction!

I strongly OPPOSE any legislation which will take away land-use and ordinance dicisions from our counties.

I OPPOSE legislation that will take away land-use and ordinance decisions from our counties.

I do not support any attempt to take control of siting snd zoning control away from local authority for solar industrial sites. Solar developers have tried to influence local elections and lost, they are threatening and in some cases moving forward with lawsuits to build their industrial site. Now they are trying to circumvent local control by going through the state legislature. And for what? I live a few miles from 2 base load reliable power stations. We have plenty of power! This power is needed up north put it in their backyards, I live in the country. If I wanted to live in an industrial complex I’d move to one. Vote no on industrial solar. Too much land consumed for non reliable power for too many jobs. If you need power build a power station. They create good paying jobs, reliable power. One day very soon SMRs are going to overshadow solar and what’s to be done with all the glass and concrete in those fields.

Please oppose HB2438. We OPPOSE legislation which will take away land-use and ordinance decisions from our counties. We want more autonomy, not less democracy for localities. Thank you.

Solar has turned our beautiful landscape into total garbage. Roads are a mess. Waste of good farm land and a mess to clean up in 25 years.

One of the legislators commented on a similar bill that it sounds like they (the legislators) feel the counties are too stupid to regulate land use - and then vote to move the bill forward. That shows exactly what you think about the citizens of the localities you will affect. The solar developers have hoodwinked the state legislators into pushing these horrible bills. This started because solar developers rolled into unprepared counties pushing their scam, many allowed them in like allowing the foxes to lord over hen houses. Once the problems started coming runoff, noise, dust, dirt, destruction, risk to wildlife, groundwater, etc - the counties woke up and said no more or only in certain places. SO now the solar companies go to the state to overrule - they find the weakest legislators to push them on their behalf doing NO due diligence on the risks and who is behind this. Greed. For example - Urban Grid's CEO has a race car team - No solar panels power those cars - they just want the subsidies to fund their own fossil-fueled toys. These projects are scams, no one can show an example of how they can be decommissioned safely, none can produce the power they advertise, and none can show where sheep can be grazed safely (they cause the sheep to get sick and the sheep destroy the equipment). The solar developers have an endless supply of money to dump into them because their cash rewards are too great and they leave the poor rural communities suffering the consequences. This is a predatory practice of the most vulnerable citizens of the state. These bills sound as if they were written by the lawyers of the solar companies - they offer NO protections to the counties and really they don't care, they don't live there and their properties won't be affected. Please put them in the places they are needed - NOT in the rural communities - use your buildings. The solar developers will destroy every last acre of land in Virginia if you allow and cover them with their slave labor panels - generations from now they will still be rotting in the fields and cannot be safely recycled because after all - these projects are not about clean or green - they are about the money the developers get for installing them - no matter how little they produce - they still get their money and the rural communities will be left with the mess - PLEASE OPPOSE THESE BILLS - PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND STOP LISTENING TO THE VERY PEOPLE THAT PROFIT FROM THEM - THEY HAVE NO REGARD FOR OUR COUNTY or OUR STATE. IT IS ALL ABOUT THEIR POCKETS - many of you may already know that and if you still vote for it - you are compliant with their nefarious plans.

OPPOSE HB2438 As an elderly widow living on a farm in rural Virginia, I ask that you vote no on HB2438. Land Use Ordinances should be made at the local level by local government regardless of your stance on utility scale solar. As an elderly widow I can easily reach out and speak to my local government Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to express my opinion. They are easily accessible and very available. Establishing a Statewide Solar Ordinance will take away my voice. During the CEUR meeting, I believe Delegate Sullivan stated that 80% of the solar farms are being denied across Virginia and the free-market system is not working. I thought this country was built on the free market system. I also thought that our elected representatives are elected by the people to represent us, the people. If rural Virginians are turning these projects down, then our representatives should do what the people want and not say "we are smarter than you and we know what is best for you". This approach is not representative government. It is more communistic. Furthermore, if these projects were not propped up with our taxpayer dollars in one of the largest tax increases in American history, none would be built. These projects are not financially viable without taxpayer subsidies. I hear the argument of landowner rights. However, these landowners and corporations are being paid with our taxpayer dollars so if 80%+ of the citizens in the locality don't want a specific project, they are also saying don't use my taxpayer dollars to fund these projects. If landowners had to rely on private investment alone they would not get paid and the projects would not be built. Finally, this country has been regulated by Land Use ordinances for over 100 years. These ordinances help protect everyday people and give them a voice. Also, remember your landowner rights stop at the point where you damage my property or harm me. The fines these solar developers are being charged for environmental violations to others' properties is tremendous. Many counties have pulled back on solar projects because they see that the developers are not delivering on their promises and they are also listening to their constituents who have voiced that they want to protect farm and forest land for future generations. Dianne Thompson

Solar is ruining the county we have. They are trespassing on homeowners properties and then suing to use their land stating they have rights to it. We do not want out farm land turned into solar properties!

I'm totally against solar power, it's very inefficient and takes away to many acres of land for very little power provided. Nuclear power is the most efficient with the smallest footprint.

I am staunchly opposed to this bill! Local land use decisions should remain with the local government and not placed in the hands of the state to decide!

Localities should have their own rules and regulations to keep the choice to the people that’s what democracy is supposed to be vote no

Please do not pass this bill. We do not need solar in Sussex County

I ask you to not pass this house bill. The power over where, how, or if industrial solar is in each county should remain with the county. The residents and land owners should have control over how their land is used.

I am asking you to please oppose this bill. Land use decisions should remain at the local level and should not be forced into an area by someone on the other end of the state. Also with mini nuclear sites and other sources of clean energy becoming so close to a reality solar is an efficient way to use land.

Against solar

As a land owner in Sussex and Surry county. I oppose this bill. Land ownership is something I take seriously. This bill takes away the rights of land ownership!! Please listen to us!!!

I do not support HB2438. Local communities should have a voice when deciding what happens to their land. This right should not be taken away because local governments and communities are making decisions that outside agencies do not agree with (especially when the energy is NOT going back to those communities).

I do not support HB2438, local government should have the say of what happens in their locality. Not for the state to take away that right, and have the only say.

Please do not pass this as this needs to be up to the localities on Solar operations!!!

I oppose HB2126 and HB2438. Any attempts by the state government to override local land use decisions are embarrassing at their best, and criminal at worst.

I am opposed to any solar ordinance which takes away local land-use decisions.

Solar farms are a waste of the natural beauty and rich farmland of our county. We don't want them here and should never be forced to accept them by anyone.

Deny HB2438! Local government needs to make decisions for land in its residing county.

Keep these decisions local! We do not want that much authority handed down from Richmond! We also don’t want filling out forms with “what’s your pronoun” to be filled out. What damn difference does that make ? I mean really!!! I am insulted by this form!

Leave local property regulations to local people and their BOS.

As a farmer and rural landowner, I strongly oppose HB2438, wielded by the strong arm of the mafiaistic Maryland based MAREC coalition of solar developers seeking to wrest control of MY land, MY county’s land, and My State! Through my Democratic voice and process, decisions were made in my locality to deny solar. I am sorry this industry is hurting because they are losing time and money on this ill-gotten gain. That is their problem, because they are selling the wrong product. The fact is, solar does not work. A recent chart published by Dominion lists numerous facilities that are not even reaching 20% capacity. And held accountable to no one! The solar industry and the Virginia Department of Energy as well as other “secret” donors are funding the UVA Weldon Cooper Center. The fact is that localities have learned, unfortunately, too late, and the hard way, that solar is destructive to our homes, health and safety, and have destroyed the environment in the process. That is why we are saying NO, and counties are targeted and blacklisted by MAREC and the likes of Skyler Zunk and Energy Right (whose role as chairman of the Virginia Solar Energy Development and Energy Storage Authority should be considered a huge conflict of interest), and employing UVA to do it’s dirty work. Rural Virginia has said NO, and we continue to say get out of my town, get out of my state, solar. And yes, Delegate Mundon-King, solar does kill pets. It was documented in Surrey County that in addition to roads, driveways, mailboxes getting damaged from solar, they did run over and kill someone’s dog! In addition to running into a schoolbus full of children. Please, elected officials reading this. Stop listening to the environmental squawk boxes. Listen to we the people who elected you; who live and work on and with this land. Listen to the Ag and Forestry folks protecting our working lands. We do not want solar in our localities, and it is our right to not allow this in our communities. Please vote NO on HB2438.

I oppose any measure that seeks to take authority away from local elected governments in their making decisions for the area and people they represent.

I oppose this bill. Decisions on solar should be left up to the local governments. Residents of localities can have their choices heard at a local level. The residents are the ones who should make the decisions on whether to place solar farms in the county, not the state government. As Abraham Lincoln stated , we are supposed to have "a government of the people, by the people, for the people", and local governments can make this happen.

HB2438 is just another bill to try and take away local decisions on solar siting.This statewide "model" for solar ordinances takes away the decisions of the people that live near them.These solar sites do not work, they produce little or no electricity and destroy the soil and water.We have thousands of pages of real scientific proof that these solar sites are costly and leave toxic materials in the ground for years.The cost for a farmer to try to reclaim the land is hundreds of thousands of dollars per acre, and produce no benefits.

I am opposed to any legislation that limits a local elected government from making land use decisions.

I am opposed to this bill. This decision should be made on a local level on a case by case basis.

We need our county to decide what’s best for our county not the state

Vote no for HB2438. Keep approval of solar projects local! Do not take away the voices of the people who have to live beside these solar farms!

Please DENY SB 1114 and do not strike out any items in lines 46 – 55, and 83 – 84. Leave these items in. There is an Energy Crisis Brewing that is not the fault of the Localities. In “Blind Faith” the Localities allowed Utility Scale Solar, and in turn the Solar Developer’s fell short on Safety, Environment, Word, Promises, Aesthetics, and Community. The Localities witnessed these Developers Behavioral Shortcomings and the Localities Good Wisdom drove them to Limit and/or Restrict Utility Scale Solar. Instead of Changing their Character Behavioral Flaws (as would Nuclear, Coal, or Gas do) for the Localities the Developers, Energy Right, Virginia Energy Department’s VSED&ESA are more focused in diverting your attention away from Energy Production to Changing Legislation in a more Socialist Format. Virginia Energy Department Director and Virginia Solar Energy Development and Energy Storage Authority Chair has led the way of Mis-Information in poor attempts of talking for the counties and a NON Scientific and Very Biased Survey. Regardless of how much honestly, hard work, and empirical information is put into pointing out Energy Right and the Solar Developers Flaws, the Richmond Auto Reply is “That’s Mis-Information”. Which validates the legislator have been mis-informed or program to say so. We are losing out on Energy Future because the focus have been to take the Localities decision away as in a Socialist State, verse focus on Energy Production. More Importantly, the Existing Utility Scale Solar Facilities are losing Generation Trends and experiencing Capacity Factor Losses greater than Anticipated Panel Annual Losses. Building more, or any Solar, will not answer the Virginia Demands. Due to bad Design, minimized maintenance, but mostly Management (or lack of). The latest Average Weight value Capacity Factor in down to 0.193 (19.3%) this is very awful for relative new facilities. Also, Virginia Utilities have been Importing and Exporting Energy for decades thru the normal operations of the Balance Authority of PJM. So, Utility Scale Solar is NOT needed for a problem that is not really recent, or in existence. To head off future Virginia Energy Problems, please do not cater to Energy Knowledge Void in the Virginia Energy Department and Virginia Solar Energy Development and Energy Storage Authority. David Tucker PE, NABCEP Associate (757) 334-3726

I oppose this and any measures that takes away local control and protection of our limited timber and farm land. Reckless expansion of solar facilities especially in rural areas is a dangerous choice. Our economy here is heavily dependent on both timber and farming not to mention the overall economy. Please don’t impose the will of more wealthy and populated areas on the rural areas in Virginia. We chose this more quiet and simple life to avoid this type of industrial activity on top of us.

Please vote against HB2438. We do not need a statewide solar ordnance for all counties. Each county is different and has their own solar ordnance.

I am not in favor of this bill. The people of Virginia need affordable energy for their homes. Large scale solar is a failure and should be abandon. Also, I believe the counties and other local governments should have final say over what happens in their jurisdiction and not have to constantly fight against the bureaucrats in Richmond who are trying to take our rights away as in this bill. More needs to be done to balance the desires/needs of the big cities with the rural areas instead of trying to make us all like the big cities. Virginia is made up of both and that should be maintained.

I oppose any model state wide ordinance that limits or takes away local land use decisions as it specifically abuses the local governments influence and decision making on how local land is to be used. I oppose any legislation that eliminates or limits local government’s decisions on local land use.

Localities (counties and towns) need to be able to enforce their governing laws without state interference. Solar companies are a short-term and dangerous solution to power alternatives, and by no means are they clean energy. Solar farms are hazards to rural communities when large acre forests are sacrificed and replaced with industrial solar. Instead they evolve into DEQ nightmares with excessive runoffs and pollution to rural waterways. The idea of a "state-wide" enforcement ordinance is an insult to Virginia local governments. EVERY COUNTY IN VIRGINIA AND TOWN should have the ability to govern as they see fit, not by predetermined policies which favor the pockets of solar companies, and not the budgets of localities. Please protect the power of local governing communities in Virginia, and help the Town of Wakefield and Sussex County fight off the threat of industrial solar destroying our lands of natural resources.

I oppose this bill. All land use should be decided by the localities. Industrial Solar is intrusive and no one should have the power to decide where it goes except for the people and local government that will be impacted by it!

I am opposed to this bill. Each locality needs to be autonomous in deciding their future. Solar farm technology is a fantasy which makes promises that it can not fulfill.

Virginia Prices will continue to go up because of the VCEA and Data centers. Some predict a 70% increase over the next few years (many say more). Why aren't the other politicians telling us about this? Lying by omission is still lying! If data centers are so great, why aren't they paying for OUR energy? The VCEA and Data centers are wreaking havoc on our Virginia energy supply and it's driving increased prices and taxes. The Politicians pushing this are following "projected" revenue promises which don't come to fruition because they're not crunching all the numbers- natural resource increases/costs, increased infrastructure costs, environmental damage costs, long term ag commodity values to name a few. Politicians call this their "financial investment" and have admitted it has nothing to do with the environment. Ratepayers must pay for the mistakes of speedy approvals while politicians seem to continue to ignore MAJOR issues - from DEQ violations, engineer reports and the driving cost of megawatts. They openly admit they are following the money. Again, it's their "financial investment" (with our tax $$). Quantity over quality is not good for Virginia or our energy. Their solution was to install solar and turbines on farms, in oceans, roof tops, parking lots and conservation land and use it to compensate the data energy drain but they STILL completely ignore that solar and turbines can't accomplish replacing other energy choices. Solar and wind are completely unsustainable economically, environmentally and with reliability. Globally. They didn't have the energy solution in place before they handed out billions and because of the VCEA we all have to rely on expensive, unreliable solar and wind turbines while data centers now get to choose affordable reliable nuclear/gas (which ratepayers also must cover $). And now they want to add more energy draining/environmentally damaging carbon capture to the mix. These climate experiments are an open drain for tax payer $$. These boondoggles are experiments that ONLY benefit investors, off the backs of Virginia ratepayers. Some of the most egregious actions by VA politicians have been allowing energy companies to take land through eminent domain, require Virginian residents to use expensive/unreliable wind and solar, all while they install massive kV towers to bring reliable/affordable energy to Data centers, from other states, that are USING COAL TO POWER THEM. Ratepayers pay for all of this, too. OUR POOREST COMMUNITIES will be hit the hardest and now they're going to remove their rights to push back (hb2126)?! This is Outrageous! This should be criminal. Which is probably why Blackrock is backing out because of "investigations and lawsuits". But for some reason, Virginian politicians still think this is good for Virginia? This needs to be investigated- which politicians are making money/have family and close friends profiting from this deceitful industry? How much money are politicians taking from clean energy companies and are they allowing them to influence their vote? Are there politicians leasing land to these industries? All of this should stop immediately, at least until A SOLUTION is in place before they continue to throw good tax payer money after bad. We must REPEAL THE VCEA.

I support HB2438, it is thoughtful regulation which puts safeguards and oversight on the solar companies, retains land use zoning and exceptions with local government, and is a substantial improvement over the current legislation. These changes do not require solar installations; but as needs and economic conditions change there will continue to be measured growth. My thanks to the sponsors for helping to assure this process is orderly and takes care with the needs of constituents, communities, and the historic, visual, and environmental impacts.

Please deny this bill! Too much oversite would be given to greedy solar companies who care nothing about localities and the people in them.

Please stop allowing the solar developers to write policies for Virginia. This bill undermines local authority over land use decisions, stripping counties of their ability to regulate the size, location, and acreage of industrial solar facilities. By imposing a State Solar Siting Ordinance, it overrides local governance and prioritizes the interests of the solar lobby over community needs. The bill poses a significant threat to Virginia’s agricultural and forest lands and the jobs tied to these industries. Industrial utility-scale solar projects generate minimal permanent employment, rely heavily on subsidies, and often exploit rural communities with limited resources to challenge developers. These projects, driven by profit and greed, can lead to economic instability in vulnerable areas while permanently destroying prime farmland and the benefits it provides. Environmental concerns such as tree loss, stormwater runoff, and sedimentation further highlight the need for stricter oversight. In karst topography can pose a threat for drinking wells up to 10 miles from these projects, compromising the health and safety of the residents and livestock that depend on wells for water sources. NONE of these risks are addressed in these bills. They are simply designed to allow the solar developers to have carte blanche over the land in Virginia, leaving the destruction behind as they cash in on the poorest communities in the state. Additionally, the bill fails to consider a balanced energy strategy, leaving communities exposed to vulnerabilities during inclement weather. Local governments, with their deep understanding of community impacts, are best suited to make land-use decisions that reflect the unique economic, cultural, and environmental needs of their residents. A more effective solution would encourage integrating solar panels into existing structures like schools, government buildings, and malls before sacrificing farmland. For these reasons, I urge you to vote NO on HB2438 to protect local governance, environmental integrity, and equitable development.

I wish to express my opposition to HB2438 . 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. This bill creates a State Solar Siting Ordinance that does not allow Counties to restrict the size of solar facilities, the location of solar facilities, or the acres of land that are permitted to be under solar panels in one County.  This is nothing more than a thinly disguised bill to take local land use decisions away from localities.  There is no doubt that the solar lobby group MAREC and others are pushing this bill out of purely economic interest.  This bill, as written, has the potential to devastate agricultural and forest lands in Virginia.  It also has the potential to devastate agricultural and forestry jobs in rural communities.  The solar projects are not creating permanent jobs.  The Solar lobby is following the subsidies and this puts agriculture and forestry at a huge disadvantage.   Utility Scale Solar is also an industrial use and should be limited near residences.  Land use should be determined by those directly affected, not by State Legislators.   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 HB2438. Land use Ordinances should be created by local government officials representing the collective will of the citizens they serve. MAREC has distributed a chart that states that Greensville County's ordinance is too strict because it does not allow solar in an Agricultural area unless it provides power to an on-site business.  What they don't tell the public is that Greensville County approved 6 solar farms in agricultural areas prior to the revision of the county ordinance.   4 of these utility scale solar facilities are operational and 2 have been approved to be built.  Greensville County has already approved thousands of acres for utility scale solar.  When Greensville County revised the land use ordinance it was in response to a large contingent of citizens voicing their opinion at government meetings expressing their desire to regulate solar deployment so it does not take over the County.  The Greensville County Board of Supervisors acted as government should. Their decisions reflected the will of the overwhelming majority of citizens attending the local government meetings.  The government was created to represent the people, and carry out the will of the people, not to act as a parent telling their child "We know better than you".  Finally, I hear the argument of landowners' rights.  However, these facilities are being built with money from one of the biggest tax increases in American History.  Landowners and large corporations are utilizing taxpayer money (the peoples' money) to build these projects.  These projects would not get built with private financing alone. Therefore, the taxpayers should drive these decisions at the local level.   Landowner rights also stop at the point that the landowner's activity harms his/her neighbor. These projects have a track record of fines for destroying neighboring land and contaminating waterways with sediment from uncontrolled stormwater runoff. Please vote No on HB2438. C. Thompson

I oppose this bill and any other that would allow more solar sites in our county. We have many sites already. Our rural culture of farming and timber is already at risk and more solar would have a devastating effect here.

Please OPPOSE this bill. Every county in Virginia is different; we do not need a "one size fits all" approach to solar. This is yet another bill aimed at taking away local land-use decisions. I strongly oppose this bill and so should every member of the committee.

Deny this bill! One size fits all Solar policies will not work. Why are we trying to give solar companies so much power. They are LLCs and can walk away from these projects at any time with little consequences. It would be left to land owners and or localities to deal with. Farm and timberland is not the place for Commercial Industrial Solar.

-This bill is highly intrusive of local land use authority. A blanket mandate like this does not take into account the nuance and needs of individual localities. -Residential development is the most consumptive of community services and least fiscally beneficial type of development. Rarely does infrastructure keep up with the pace of residential growth and this would be putting undue burden on many localities that already struggle to keep pace. That burden gets transferred to taxpayers, cost of living goes up, quality of life is reduced and the cycle just perpetuates. -What is the plan to ensure that developers even will build what they propose? There are years and years of worth of approved, yet unbuilt homes already in the residential pipeline in my city and many others. -What will the long-term effects be of prioritizing only high-density/multi-family construction now? And lowering standards? -Will people who desire a single-family (or just a higher quality) home in their future have to leave the state of Virginia? -This bill will significantly reduce the rate of home ownership, which used to be a point of pride and indicator of economic stability in a community. -Is it wise to create this intrusive law now just to band-aid a current problem?