The price of power
Have solar and wind power increased electricity costs in Virginia? Absolutely! In the last five years, Virginia’s electricity rates have increased 47.6% according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The average yearly increase is about 14.5%. Why are electricity bills so much higher when solar industrial projects that are supposed to lower rates are booming all over Virginia? Economists from the University of Chicago pinpointed a primary reason. Their study shows that in states which had mandated strict renewable energy goals, electricity prices increased 11% on average, a cost for consumers of approximately $30 billion annually.
Unfortunately, Virginia is one of the states with mandated solar/wind goals. The Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) passed in July 2020 by the Northam (D) administration on a party line vote requires the state to have a 100% carbon-free grid by 2045 for Dominion Power and by 2050 for Appalachian Power. Virginia is rapidly retiring its oil and coal-firing power plants in order to have two-thirds of its electricity produced by solar and wind by 2035. Today, solar and wind produce 7% of the state’s power. Heavy penalties will fall on the power companies if they do not fully comply. Former Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) tried unsuccessfully to repeal the VCEA in order to take a more measured approach. Now state lawmakers are becoming nervous about meeting their own deadlines because solar facilities are not living up to their promise.
Dominion Power’s recent filings with the Virginia State Corporation Commission reveal that its largest utility solar projects have failed to meet the modest goals promised when these projects were permitted. Some have produced electricity less than 20% of the time. Considering the inherent inefficiency of solar panels, which convert 20 to 22% of the sun’s energy to electricity while losing the remainder to heat and reflection, these are disturbing results. Disturbing results or not, out-of-state solar companies have pounced on Virginia and continue to try to capture any bit of available land, largely arable farmland or forest, on which to build their solar projects. They are here because they know that Virginia needs more power to fuel the state’s over 600 data centers.
Data centers are another primary reason for expensive electricity. Virginia currently houses 35% of the world’s data centers– 70% of the world’s Internet traffic flows daily through Virginia. Why are there so many data centers in Virginia? Data centers are sales tax exempt in Virginia, and many localities also have offered reduced business and property tax incentives. Information on Botetourt County’s agreements with Google for its data center has not been made public. Power hog data centers consume 25% of all Virginia’s power production now– and this will only increase as they expand into southwestern Virginia. Not only do data centers consume power, they need special infrastructure– 120-feet-high transmission lines– expensive equipment paid for by the power companies.
A third reason why solar is bringing higher energy costs for the Virginia ratepayer lies in the inability of renewable energy to meet energy targets. Renewables (solar/wind) are by nature unreliable, intermittent, diffuse, and limited by weather. Solar panels do not produce energy at night– 50% of the time– or when it is cloudy; wind turbines do not turn when there is no wind. To compensate for their intermittency, power companies must build back-up systems (industrial battery storage systems, gas-fired plants, etc.) to keep the grid working. Building and maintaining back-up systems in addition to solar systems means paying for two power systems instead of just one. In addition, each solar or wind facility must have industrial battery storage to minimize intermittent surges and drops in power and their own transmission lines which may extend for long distances and may be widely scattered over a county. All of these gas or nuclear power plants and infrastructure are paid for by the power companies who pass it on to the ratepayers. So, renewable energy’s promise of lower electricity rates for Virginia’s customers is not panning out. It may never pan out.
Barbara Hollisworth, Visiting Fellow at the Thomas Jefferson Institute, warns: “Local officials who are thinking about special use permits to allow more solar facilities to be built on agricultural land in their jurisdictions owe it to their constituents to tally up all the potential costs– especially the loss of irreplaceable farmland– as well as the benefits before signing off on this supposedly ‘free’ form of energy production.”
Should the citizens of Botetourt County willingly give up our farmland, our historic places, our wildlife and our rural way of life for solar’s false promises of lower rates? Or is the cost too high?
C. L. Bandy
Fincastle
Letter reports supervisor’s actions at May meeting
The May Board of Supervisors (BoS) meeting continued to highlight the inept actions of the occupant of the Buchanan District seat, which is never surprising and has generally become expected.
The third item on the agenda was a rezoning request upon which no action was taken at the April public hearing due to her lack of familiarity with Roberts Rules of Order, although she has had no problem lecturing the chairman about them. Mr. Michael made a motion to deny the request, which the Disgruntled Californian (DC) immediately seconded. In discussion, Mr. Michael spoke of how hard the BoS had worked in developing the new comprehensive plan and he thought they should stick with that (in other words, “no changes for any reason”).
The DC vehemently agreed with Mr. Michael about the whole purpose of developing the new comprehensive plan and she and Mr. Michael voted in favor of the motion. Mr Nicely and Mr. Snyder voted against the motion, making it a tie vote. The DC then asked, “Doesn’t it fail for lack of a majority?” With her vast knowledge of Roberts Rules of Order, she should not have had to ask that question. The answer to her question was that the negative motion to deny (which probably should not have been made in the first place) did fail and, since no further action was taken thereon at the April public hearing on this matter, it remained undecided and had to be put on the agenda for the May BoS meeting for a vote to either approve or deny.
And then, when it came up at the May meeting and the unique situation which occurred at the April public hearing was explained to the BoS by staff, the DC said, “I was kind of wondering about that after we (cackling) after we all adjourned I was thinking, I was thinking at the time maybe something else should have happened.” She then went on to reveal something totally and completely different from what she said when she seconded the motion to deny and voted to deny the request. What a surprise! She said she was concerned that this would set some kind of precedent that would come back to bite us, but she had consulted with the county attorney and no longer had this concern. Wow!
Couldn’t it just as well be that she knew she could flex a little muscle for her team and show them how wise they were to elect her, since there were only four BoS members present at the April public hearing and she knew there would be a tie vote, but her lack of knowledge of the rules of order was readily apparent to everyone but her disciples and she wanted to attempt to cover that up? Or, was she concerned that at the May meeting there would be five BoS members present and this matter would be approved, at worst, on a 3-2 vote? Either way, it seems doubtful she even knows why she did what she did.
Item #3 was the Consent Agenda. When it was announced and a motion was made and seconded to approve it, the DC basically called for a “time out” and everyone sat in silence while she shuffled through some papers and looked on her computer and said, “I am just trying to see what all of the items are on the Consent Agenda.” And then, after shuffling through a pile of papers she finally found whatever she was seeking (it appeared she had never looked at it before), said “Thank you” and then asked, “Can we do a noise ordinance request by consent?” When the answer was “yes,” it then went on to a unanimous vote of approval. Why does everyone have to wait for the DC to take her first glance of the Consent Agenda during the meeting? She could have asked that question before the meeting and would have received the same answer, but she defeats the whole purpose of having a Consent Agenda. Thankfully, the other four supervisors do their job and look at the Consent Agenda before the meeting.
Action on the FY27 General Budget was tabled until after a meeting with the auditor on June 11. This was done after the BoS was advised that the schools could not sign teacher contracts until after budget approval and that might cause problems. Attendees at that meeting are to include the DC. There is little hope she will be able to understand anything the auditor says since she is the numbers person who is not very good at math. Nevertheless, as usual she will ask many questions, the answers to which will most likely be obvious to all the others in attendance. It is too bad that it is not a public meeting as many would pay the price of admission to watch that sideshow!
Kudos to our Fire/EMS workers who worked so diligently to increase our ISO Fire Rating by 22 points! I am sure all who complained about spending tax money for these excellent services will not, maybe for the first time, complain when their insurance premiums do not increase and may even be reduced by this accomplishment!
When some of the chronic complainers started on their second round of complaints in the General Citizen Comment Period, I departed. I later learned that I missed something flying out of the cuckoo’s nest and, the next time I go shopping, I need to be on the lookout for the digital price tags in stores with little cameras on them where they can see how much money you make and the prices will go up and the prices will go down! Can’t wait for that!
Bob Patterson
Fincastle (Buchanan District)
Solar projects more damaging than data centers
There’s another issue percolating in Botetourt even as the data center debate rolls on. I would argue that this one has the potential to do even more damage to what’s left of the county’s esteemed heritage and rural landscape. Like Google, this threat originates outside of the county. Unlike Google though, it is a more pervasive threat that hides behind good intentions. This threat comes from the spread of solar power projects that now have the support of our General Assembly and our newly elected governor. And as if that’s not worrisome enough, there is a July 1, 2026 deadline looming for those who take this threat seriously.
On May 26, County Attorney Mike Lockaby made clear the state’s newly declared preference for solar installations over rural farmland in his legislative update. This preference resides in SB 443 and HB 711. There is also SB347, which is a companion bill to HB711.
Taken together, their intent is to grease the skids for the approval of community-scale and utility-scale solar projects in ways that override local ordinances designed to preserve rural farmland. That’s not all. Under this new legislation, localities that deny solar projects must explain to the state of Virginia why an industrial-, commercial- or utility-scale project was refused along with all documentation relevant to the refusal.
Supporters call this an overdue “modernization” of what they contend were “overly restrictive” local ordinances. The obvious takeaway is that while local governments– those governments that are closest to the people they govern– have been over-ruled by the heavy hand of special interests now controlling the Virginia legislature and governor’s office. In their minds, rural counties and their residents must step up and “embrace the warmth of the collective,” in a way that would make New York City’s new socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani giddy with excitement.
Botetourt County is not New York City. Botetourt County is not Richmond, either. As with all rural communities, ours is as unique as the traditions and the people who built it. For most of us, living here is a deliberate vote in favor of a rural lifestyle that is already rapidly disappearing. For years, the urbanization of the southern part of the county came with a pledge to protect its rural northern end. Where is that pledge now as companies like New Leaf Energy and OneEnergy are pushing to industrialize Botetourt’s remaining farmland? The permitting of Rocky Forge Wind in a Forest Conservation District should have been a warning of what county planners and our Board of Supervisors are capable of. If we are to retain anything of Botetourt County’s rural character, we’re going to have to push back. Leaving to an Orwellian “collective” the power to determine who wins and who loses is antithetical to core American values.
Having said all of this, what of the “pursuit of happiness” argument where our property rights grant all property owners the right to do as they please with their private property? If this argument applied in its absolute form, then what is the purpose of zoning at all? Isn’t the entire rationale for zoning predicated on an informed attempt to define “appropriate use” in ways that promote “neighborly” communities? Surely we don’t accept that some property owners have more rights than others, do we? Will the installation of a utility-scale or community-scale solar project nearby or next door have an impact on my lifestyle and the value of my property? How about environmental concerns due to runoff and panel leakage over time?
Time is short. Our county administration and Board of Supervisors still have room to mitigate some of the damage done by SB443, HB 711 and SB347. Call them. Write them. Educate yourselves. This issue is not about a “sustainable” future; it’s about politics, the money that comes from political connections, and we’re paying the price.
Bill Van Velzer
Fincastle District
