Virginia energy experts feel a recent push for solar energy legislation could have benefited the state.

Senate Bill 697 would have removed a ban on solar energy installations, compounded by county-level moratoriums. Instead, localities could not ban solar projects until they hit 4% of their landmass. It would have allowed landowners to bring projects forward for a vote.

The bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support, but failed in the House.

Skyler Zunk, co-founder and CEO of the nonprofit Energy Right, said misinformation has hampered solar development.

"We hear, very frequently, that folks think panels contain toxic materials and leach out chemicals into the ground. It's absolutely not true," Zunk pointed out. "You hear a lot of folks with concerns over lowered property values nearby projects."

An Energy Right poll shows most residents support landowners' right to build a solar project on their land. Had the bill passed, numerous counties would have had to revise statutes to allow landowners to bring the projects forward.

The Virginia Association of Counties came out against the bill, arguing it reallocated local control. Zunk countered most of the organization's reasons are not factual.

Virginia has a high demand for clean energy, although it consumes three times more electricity than it generates, getting additional power from two regional grids. Zunk believes it is not a sustainable way forward but said it will have to wait until the General Assembly reconvenes in 2025.

"It remains to be seen if this bill will come back next year," Zunk noted. "If it might undergo a couple more changes, if counties want to be constructive and talk about ways that they could address some of their concerns while also understanding the need for development of new energy in Virginia."

Beyond benefiting residents, solar energy benefits localities, too, generating millions in tax revenue. Through 2031, Halifax County will generate almost $11 million from solar projects, with another nine projects under construction, which can be used to fund schools and local infrastructure projects.


get more stories like this via email

New federal funding aims to revolutionize solar energy access within New Mexico's Native American communities and benefit the state overall.

The Environmental Protection Agency's $7 billion "Solar for All" program is designed to create new or expanded low-income solar programs.

Talia Martin, co-executive director of the National Tribal Program for GRID Alternatives, said the funding will help bridge the clean energy gap in Native American communities.

"In New Mexico, tangible impacts would be for household savings," Martin explained. "Which means working directly with the tribes to ensure that the savings are going to individual households as well as to the community as a whole."

According to Martin, the $62 million EPA grant awarded to the GRID Tribal Program is its largest ever. Nationwide, the agency's program is set to help at least 4,700 households in Native American communities. Across the U.S., the EPA said the program will enable more than 900,000 low-income households and disadvantaged communities to benefit from distributed solar energy.

Martin emphasized the program will allow GRID to help bolster solar storage capabilities and implement essential upgrades, while at the same time advancing their mission to support the self-determined efforts of Native American tribes to deploy clean energy on tribal lands, arguing it will be important to recruit contractors who understand the needs of tribal communities they're working with.

"It's an amazing window for Indian Country to be involved in energy development," Martin pointed out. "We want to just help foster all these relationships that it is going to take to do that."

The state of New Mexico also received a grant of $156 million from the program to overcome existing barriers to widespread adoption of distributed solar generation. In addition to the federal money for solar, Array Technologies announced last week it will build a new $50 million solar manufacturing campus near Albuquerque.

A round of public testimony wrapped up this week as part of renewed efforts by a company seeking permit approval in North Dakota for an underground pipeline carrying carbon emissions. Economic benefits were again touted but the plan still has opponents.

Last year, North Dakota's Public Service Commission denied a permit request from Summit Carbon Solutions, which wants to build a maze of pipelines in several Midwestern states. Emissions from ethanol plants would be captured for underground storage in North Dakota.

Skott Skokos, executive director of the Dakota Resource Council, said they remain unconvinced it would be a worthwhile project.

"It felt like déjà vu," Skokos observed. "I don't think Summit did anything to relax the concerns of the public."

Company officials have submitted a new application with a revised route as they try to ease concerns about safety and landowner rights. During comment periods, Summit leaders and other speakers discussed how the project would provide economic boosts, including corn prices. However, skeptics restated their concerns about potential ruptures and lasting negative effects on the landscape.

Skokos pointed out large carbon-capture projects like these have yet to prove themselves, noting smaller initiatives are not as likely to rile up opponents. He pointed to the Red Trail ethanol plant in North Dakota.

"They're storing it, basically, almost on-site, next to the facility and they're not affecting a bunch of landowners in the process," Skokos emphasized.

The Summit regulatory case has two upcoming public hearings in North Dakota, one scheduled for May 24 and the other on June 4. The company has run into similar opposition and permitting headwinds in other states, including South Dakota.

Leaders concerned about pollution and climate change are raising awareness about a ballot measure this fall on whether the state should mandate buffer zones around new oil and gas wells.

Voters will be asked to uphold or revoke Senate Bill 1173, which would require a 3,200-foot setback around any new well near schools, neighborhoods and hospitals.

Meghan Sahli-Wells, former mayor of Culver City and a leader with the group Elected Officials to Protect America, fought to phase out the Inglewood oil field and said no community should be a sacrifice zone.

"A study from Harvard found that in California, 34,000 people died in 2018, prematurely, from fossil fuel air pollution," Sahli-Wells pointed out. "These figures are three times higher than other studies."

The Stop the Energy Shutdown campaign, supported by the California Independent Petroleum Association, opposes the setback rule, arguing it could constrict local supply and cost jobs in the industry. A court put the bill on hold pending the outcome of the November election. A "yes" vote would keep the setbacks. A "no" vote would rescind them.

Clean energy advocates are also speaking out against companies operating older low-producing wells rather than pay to shut them down and seal them up properly.

Ahmad Zahra, a city council member in Fullerton, said Assembly Bill 2716 would incentivize their closure by charging companies $10,000 a day to operate so-called "stripper wells."

"We have over 40,000 oil wells currently sitting orphaned or idle, leaking methane and volatile organic compounds into the air, water and soil," Zahra emphasized.

Other states are following California's lead. Rep. Debbie Sariñana, D-Albuquerque, New Mexico, is sponsoring a bill to require setbacks near sensitive locations since more than 32,000 children in the state attend school within a mile of an oil and gas extraction site.

"Over 80 schools in northwestern New Mexico - the San Juan Basin and southeastern New Mexico, the Permian Basin - are within one mile of an oil and gas well," Sariñana noted. "Some schools are surrounded by dozens and even hundreds of wells within a single mile."