On Wednesday, residents of Spotsylvania County gathered for a public hearing regarding the proposal of a 500-megawatt solar power facility on a 6,300 acre site. Majority of the attendees went to the hearing to state their dismay over the project. Local residents to the proposed solar plant stated concerns about the location of the facility and unknown health risks. The solar company sPower claims safety is a top priority for them. However, residents are not convinced. The bill resides on the Virginia governors desk. Check back with Make Solar Safe for further updates on sPowers’s status.

Solar farm foes, supporters make their cases in marathon hearing before Spotsylvania supervisors

By Scott Shenk

In a marathon public hearing that ran into the early morning hours Wednesday, red-clad opposition forces of a massive solar farm proposed in western Spotsylvania County outnumbered green-geared solar proponents, but the winner remains undetermined.

The Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors left the public hearing on the special-use permits for a proposed 500-megawatt solar power facility on a 6,300-acre site with a mountain of testimony and information, and probably a lot of questions.

The nearly nine hours of testimony ran the gamut of practical and scientific to profane accusations and what some called flat-out lies.

The crowd filled more than half of Spotsylvania High School’s auditorium. Those who showed up were greeted by solar proponents wearing green shirts and dishing out pizza and opponents wearing red shirts and passing out anti-project stickers.

The hearing drew more than 100 speakers, some of whom spoke several times. They ranged in age from teenagers to grandparents.

State Sen. Bryce Reeves, R–Spotsylvania, was one of those speakers. When the three-minute time limit for individuals was up, Reeves demanded more time to speak, for his constituents, he said to cheers. He got the extra two minutes allowed to speakers representing groups.

Reeves accused solar interests of gobbling up profits while enjoying tax breaks and told the crowd and supervisors he did not support the project.

He was among several opponents who targeted Sustainable Power Group’s credibility and intentions, along with other residents whose comments varied from well-organized, sincere and insightful to confusing, irate and political.

The first speaker—like many in the crowd, a resident of Fawn Lake, a neighborhood that borders a small portion of the site—connected the proposal to the “New Green Deal” and Washington politics. Yet, he and others also pointed out their primary concerns about the project: that it’s too big, too close to homes and there are too many unknown risks.

The Utah-based company, primarily through local attorney Charlie Payne, defended sPower’s background and said it has worked with officials in a rigorous approval process, which included hearings with the State Corporation Commission, the county Planning Commission and now the supervisors.

Payne, who repeatedly told supervisors “misinformation” was being spread, described the project and produced documents he said are backed by experts in such fields as solar, environmental, financial and housing.

The president and CEO of sPower, Ryan Creamer, spoke at the end of the hearing, after midnight had long passed and most of the crowd was gone.

He said safety is the company’s top priority and that all of the more than 150 solar and wind facilities sPower operates are strictly monitored. He also said the company has never decommissioned a facility, some of which operate near homes and schools.

Creamer also responded to issues raised about the numerous limited liability corporations involved in the project, which some think is dubious and a way for companies to bale out on projects without any culpability.

“We are not shell companies,” he said, adding that the Spotsylvania facility, like all others the company owns, are assets they want to work and that sPower has long-term contracts to sell its solar power. The company already has agreements to sell power from the Spotsylvania site to Microsoft, Apple and the University of Richmond.

A Microsoft official spoke at the meeting, saying the solar facility is key to the tech giant’s work, which requires a lot of electricity.

The proposal would use 1.8 million solar panels on three parcels of a more than 6,300-acre property used for years for timber farming. The solar panels and other equipment would cover about half of the property, while more than 2,000 acres would be conserved. The project would impact wetlands and endangered mussels.

The company chose the spot because of its proximity to the primary power grid. Payne called it the Interstate 95 of the electrical grid.

The facility would measure up with the largest so-called “solar farms” in the United States and be the biggest on the East Coast. While solar facilities exist in a variety of areas across the world (including around homes, schools and businesses) most of the large solar facilities are in isolated, desert areas.

Opponents say the Spotsylvania site is too close to homes. They say it would pose unknown risks to the ecosystem, in solar panels containing carcinogen cadmium telluride, from increased heat around the panels, by lowering property values in the area to the point that it would have a negative impact on county tax revenue. They say the project violates the county’s Comprehensive Plan and requirements for special-use permits.

Supporters said the project would help cut the reliance on environment-damaging fossil fuels, and the site would go mostly unnoticed because it is in the middle of several tracts of vacant land and a small number of residences would be impacted.

The company says the project complies with regulations and agrees with most of the county restrictions, including strict and voluminous stipulations suggested by the Planning Commission.

But Payne told the supervisors the total bond figure the commission recommended, to cover decommissioning costs, is exorbitant and unnecessary. He added that the 350-foot setbacks from home properties also is too much and would impact the project.

While the company takes issue with the bond expectations, Payne said sPower is happy to abide by stipulations in Reeve’s bill, which the senator said are meant to hold companies responsible.

Reeves told the crowd the bill was “sitting on the governor’s desk.”

The supervisors, who mostly listened to the speakers without comment, will digest information on the project and take up the issue at their next meeting, March 12. It is unclear if any vote will be taken at that time.

Read here.

A newly proposed plan to build one of the largest solar facilities in the country has residents in an uproar in Spotsylvania County, VA. Sustainable Power Group, also known as sPower, plan to install around 1.8 million solar panels on 6,300-acres marked for agricultural use. The location sPower wants to build the 500-megawatt facility is surrounded by neighborhoods, schools, and forest land. The county residents have created groups to oppose the project. The people of Spotsylvania state their fear of potential health and environmental risks, along with decreasing community property values. A public hearing is scheduled to be held later this week. Make Solar Safe will continue to update consumers on the status of sPower’s proposed solar facility.

Public hearing nears for massive Spotsylvania solar farm proposal

By Scott Shenk

The public hearing is looming for the proposed 500-megawatt solar facility in the western part of Spotsylvania County.

The Board of Supervisors public hearing, for three special-use permits, is scheduled to start at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday.

The hearing will be held at Spotsylvania High School because of the expected large crowd. The county’s Planning Commission was forced to hold its meetings on the three special-use permits at the Marshall Center to accommodate the crowds.

If the supervisors’ hearing resembles past meetings on the contentious proposal, it will be a long night, with the applicant, Utah-based Sustainable Power Group, and residents who live near the site dueling to convince the supervisors to side with them.

Supervisor Gary Skinner, who told the board earlier this month he can’t attend the hearing because of a planned family trip, said there is “too much information” for him to make a decision anytime soon.

“I’m not ready for a vote,” he said in an interview last week. “This is the biggest project, I think, Spotsylvania will ever have.”

Fellow Supervisor David Ross agreed, adding in an email that Skinner’s absence would preclude the board from voting. But that appears to be a secondary issue.

“I personally believe after the public hearing and whatever the final changes (if any) are made to the SUP—there should be time to sink in before taking a vote,” Ross said in the email.

What has unfolded since sPower filed an application early last year to build the facility caught many by surprise.

The magnitude of the project has dominated much of the county’s business during the past year. Aside from filings with the State Corporation Commission and county, there has been opposition by well-organized and well-funded residents.

Already a major player in the booming solar industry, sPower wants to build a $615-million facility with 1.8 million solar panels planted on three swaths of land covering about 6,300-acres that has long been farmed for timber in a rural but increasingly populated area of the county. The property is zoned agricultural.

The project measures up with the biggest solar facilities in the country.

The largest such solar facility is known as Solar Star, a 579-megawatt plant in Rosamond, Calif. Like other utility-scale solar facilities, Solar Star was built in an isolated area of the Mojave Desert.

The proposed Spotsylvania site is on previously forested land with wildlife, although the property has been largely clear cut by a timber company.

The site also is bordered, in places, by homes, including the Fawn Lake neighborhood. Residents have formed groups in an effort to oppose the project.

The campaign on each side has ramped up recently, with sPower running slick video ads promoting the project and a resident group called Protect Spotsylvania sending out glossy fliers criticizing the solar farm.

The company is promoting the Spotsylvania proposal as a green energy project. The company has agreements with such tech giants as Microsoft and Apple to sell electricity the plant would generate and pipe into the power grid.

Although the facility’s electricity would be sold to companies outside the county, sPower says it would prove beneficial to Spotsylvania. Those primary benefits are financial, via jobs, tax revenue and attracting companies that would want to set up in the county.

Local attorney Charlie Payne, who represents sPower, said the project would generate $22 million in tax revenue alone.

Opponents dispute sPower’s revenue claims.

The Protect Spotsylvania group produced an analysis claiming the county would lose up to $88 million over 35 years, based on property value decreases along with 191 “unbuilt lots” and revenue tied to loss of construction of homes on the lots.

Among a raft of other issues, opponents say the project is too big to be built near homes and poses health and environmental risks.

The company disputes such claims, saying its scientific evidence backs up its position that the facility would be safe. Company officials also contend that its information has been vetted by intense regulatory oversight while the opponents’ information has not.

The company has adjusted its proposal, including planned water usage, after its initial filing.

Still, the planning commission set more conditions last month.

The additional restrictions focus on such things as setbacks from property lines, erosion control, construction impacts, prohibiting solar panels with cadmium telluride, the use of groundwater and burning debris.

The planning commission denied the larger two of the three special-use permit requests, one of which would produce 400 megawatts and comprise 5,200 acres.

Learn more here.

A major selling point for renewable energy is the initial promise of cheaper rates for customers. However, many consumers experience their utility rates become more expensive over time.

The increase of renewable energy through policy such as net metering has shown that rooftop solar energy is still in developing stages. The grid is not equipped to handle the distribution of solar energy. This causes an increase in utility bills to pay for infrastructure to better distribute energy to consumers. Promoting cheaper rates is a good strategy to convince consumers to go green, but not always accurate due to frequent policy change and infrastructure projects.

If Renewable Energy Is So Cheap, Why Are Utility Rates Going Up?

By Steve Hanley

In a recent story about renewable energy initiatives in the Midwest, we quoted David Lundy, head of the Path To 100 Coalition in Illinois, who said a bill before that state’s legislature to expand its renewable energy programs would add “a couple of bucks a month” to the average customer’s utility bill. That got a response from CleanTechnica reader Bob Meyer, who wrote,

“An issue I have been wondering about came up in this article. The comment by David Lundy about renewable energy expansion will add “a couple of bucks a month” to the average customer’s utility bill. What I am confused about is that wholesale renewable power is becoming the lowest cost form of generation, but I do not see any mention of these apparent cost savings translating into ratepayer rate reductions. Rather, there are occasional mentions of increased utility consumer costs. So my question is where are these “savings” going? Someone must be pocketing them. Does the ratepayer ever get to participate in these savings?”

Meyer continues, “I am a big supporter of renewable energy and enjoy the many excellent articles on CleanTechnica. But I am worried that if the general public keeps hearing about renewable energy and at the same time see their utility bill going up and up, how can we expect broad support? The traditional utility model uses its rate payers as cash cows. With the build out of renewable energy, are we going down the same path?”

Those are excellent questions. One of the biggest arguments against the initiative to increase Arizona’s renewable energy standard last fall was that ever since California started mandating more renewable energy, utility rates have gone up significantly. Of course, opponents were careful not to research why those rate increases occurred, as the standard for debate in America today is to lie through your teeth as often as necessary to “win.” But Bob Meyer raises a good point and I promised to look into his concerns.

Coincidentally, I recently found an article by CNBC stating that utility customers in Germany can expect bigger utility bills as more renewable energy is brought online in that country. By some estimates, German transmission system operators expect to spend upwards of €80 billion over the next 12 years to build new transmission infrastructure to move all that new renewable energy from where it is created to where it is needed.

Up to half of the demand for power in German’s industrial south will need to come from renewable sources located in the north. Already three new underground trunks are planned for completion by 2025 and the TSOs say two more may be needed in addition. They also say another €52 billion may be needed to connect offshore wind farms to the mainland.

Add it all up and it comes to some seriously big money. The upshot is that even if the wind and the sun are free, the interconnections that get all that power to where it is needed will cost beaucoup bucks. So the answer to Bob Meyer’s question is, generating solar and wind power is getting cheaper all the time, but connecting them to the traditional grid is getting more expensive.

Approximately one quarter of all utility bills go to paying for infrastructure. As those costs go up, so do our electric bills. Finding ways to deliver zero emissions electricity to end users more economically would go along way toward lowering them, which would help get more people interested in renewables. That, in turn, would be good for us, our nation, and our world. 

Read here.

U.S. legislators hold a growing concern over low-cost solar panels being imported by Huawei believing their products are causing harm to the electrical grid. Huawei’s products have been affected by the recent 25 percent tariff on Chinese electronics that became effective on Aug. 23, 2018. Politicians have warned these low-cost panels “may pose a threat to our nation’s infrastructure.” According to Reuters, Utah-based Vivint Solar confirmed it is considering using Huawei’s inverters to its line-up. Make Solar Safe has previously warned consumers on the investigation Vivint Solar is undergoing by New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas. The charges include allegations of unfair business practices, fraud and racketeering. New modernizations to make solar panels cheaper and more accessible could have negative consequences to the solar market. Make Solar Safe supports consumer rights to a safe transition to solar. 

More Trouble for Huawei: U.S. Lawmakers Question “Threat” of Solar Panels

By Luca Laursen

Huawei’s troubles continue to gather pace.

In recent months the telecoms giant has had its CFO Meng Wanzhou arrested in Canada, been barred from the construction of 5G networks in the U.K, Australia, and New Zealand, and had a sales director arrested in Poland on suspicion of espionage (Poland is also considering a ban on the use of Huawei products).

Now, suspicion has spread to the Chinese firm’s sideline in solar panels. U.S. tariffs already posed a barrier to Huawei’s entry into the country’s growing solar market, but American politicians now claim the firm’s panels could be sleeper agents for disrupting the U.S. electrical grid.

In October, Democratic congressman Tom Marino wrote to U.S. energy secretary Rick Perry about their concerns, stating Huawei’s cheaper solar panel technology “may pose a threat to our nation’s infrastructure.”

On top of this, legislators introduced bills on Wednesday that would restrict sales of U.S. technology to Chinese telecoms companies in violation of sanctions or export control laws.

In response to the gathering storm, Huawei founder and president Ren Zhengfei Tuesday told reporters that he was ready to fight the mounting charges against his company. Huawei’s chief security officer in the U.S. told the Financial Times, “There is no evidence, and I have never heard any specific allegation that there is any greater vulnerability in our products than anybody else’s.”

Read here.