Augusta zoning board rejects part two of Elm Spring Solar project

VERONA – On Aug. 1, the Augusta County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) issued a verdict on Elm Spring Solar II , a small scale solar energy system.

The answer was no. For Elm Spring owner Ginny Reynolds Badgett, the decision means the farm can maintain its status quo but denies it the capital it needs to upgrade its facilities and projects.

“I am surprised and disappointed by the BZA’s decision,” Badgett told The News Leader.

The rejection comes off the heels of Board of Supervisors’ rejection of the Augusta Solar , a large-scale solar energy system.

What is Elm Spring Solar II?

Much of the project presentation echoed what was presented to the Augusta County Planning Commission weeks before. According to the presentation, RWE Clean Energy, LLC is the second largest solar owner and operator in the United States, with about 2,000 employees.

The project would be 23 acres inside the fence on an approximately 330-acre farm. The power would have been sold to Dominion to be used in its grid. It would have created enough electricity to power about 530 homes.

The project was also intended to participate in Dominion’s Shared Solar Program, which would have brought a 10% to 15% discounted power to qualified residents.

The existing grazing cattle would have gotten new neighbors. The second-generation tenant farmer would have added sheep grazing under the panels.

More information is available in the project’s executive summary , the Augusta County Planning Commission agenda packet , and information from Elm Spring Solar I's developer , Antares Group Inc.

Elm Spring Solar I came first

This is not the first Elm Spring solar project coming before the board. A previous three-megawatt project was approved by the BZA in July 2023 on a three-to-one vote . The previous project is still under construction.

The reason for having two projects is based on regulation, Antares Group Inc. Project Manager Kevin Comer told the board.

“A three-megawatt project is one of the larger sizes that’s allowed for these distributed projects for if you’re going to sell the power directly back to Dominion through a power purchase agreement,” Comer said.

Both projects would sell electricity to Dominion Energy. Based on regulations applied to the energy market, Comer said, one six-megawatt project would have been selling energy through a larger market, competing with solar energy systems generating 100 megawatts. The larger systems are able to take advantage of economies of scale, selling more electricity for a lower rate but still about to make profit due to volume of sales, making it “hard to compete.”

Badgett makes her case for Elm Spring Solar II

The board held a public hearing with five speakers in favor and two against.

During both the planning commission and board meetings, Badgett said the project began with her mother’s desire to keep the farm in their family. Elm Spring Orchard was owned and operated by the Morris family, Badgett’s grandparents. Her mother, Sara Morris Reynolds, saw the board approve Elm Spring Solar I before she died.

"August 5 marks a year since my mother passed away,” said Badgett. “Knowing that one solar project was approved and a second was being planned gave her hope for the future of her beloved Elm Spring Farm.”

Badgett explained Elm Spring Solar I’s revenue is expected to cover taxes and operating expenses for the farm.

“Elm Spring II means that, for the first time in decades, Elm Spring will have a guaranteed source of revenue that we can put back into the farm for fences and barns and soil nutrition,” said Badgett. “With the approval of this project, I can offer a multi-year lease to my tenant farmers and provide stability to all of our farming operations. It means that I can make strategic, long-term investments at Elm Spring and in the local community, like my grandparents did years ago by donating land for the Preston L. Yancey Fire Station. To do this, I need capital. I need time and I need strong partners. My tenant farmers are a few of those partners, and RWE Clean Energy is another strong partner.”

Discussion among board members was under ten minutes long

After an hour and a half of discussion, the board took a ten-minute break before the BZA considered what they would do. Upon returning, the discussion began.

“I think it's important to recognize that the county does not have ownership of this land,” said BZA board member Monica Rutledge. “It's the farmers. It's the families. And I don't think you can bank on something that you don't have. That's just my piece.”

She made a similar argument to previous solar discussions in the county, both in the planning commission for this project and the recently denied Augusta Solar .

“I think I would much rather see in the back distance of a field, which you can barely see, 23 acres of solar panels than I would, a full development of 1,000 houses, roads, increased traffic, and all of that in that,” Rutledge said. “I think passing this allows a farm to stay a farm, and allows them to continue operation.”

She moved the board approve the project, seconded by Board member Mark Glover.

Then the board voted.

Board members tie the vote

Rutledge and Glover voted to approve the project.

Chairman George Coyner II and Board member Thomas Bailey voted against.

Board member Thomas Thacker abstained from the vote, as he has the same attorney as the solar project.

“We have four people voting, two-to-two,” said Coyner after the vote. “That means it dies right?”

“It’s got to be my majority vote, so it would fail,” confirmed County Attorney James Benkahla.

With that, Elm Spring Solar II will not be moving forward.

In an email sent after the meeting, Badgett gave her thoughts on the board’s rejection.

“I am surprised and disappointed by the BZA’s decision,” wrote Badgett. “The land is currently used for livestock grazing, which is highly compatible with solar. We planned to graze sheep under the panels for this small, 23-acre distributed solar project. The project represented a small percentage of the total grazing land and, I felt, was a balanced use of the farm. The existing power lines and Dominion Energy substation nearby made this location particularly ideal for solar and unattractive for residential or commercial development. Finally, this solar project would have locally produced power for around 530 homes. Everyone could have benefited in some way: the county, my family, our tenant farmers, and our neighbors.”

It is not Augusta County's final solar project. Another solar energy system was on the planning commission’s agenda this week.

According to the agenda packet , the request is for a small solar energy system at 121 Mule Academy Road in Fishersville. Fishersville A Solar would be a 22-acre project within the fence.

County staff believes the project is “not in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.”

Lyra Bordelon (she/her) is the public transparency and justice reporter at The News Leader. Do you have a story tip or feedback? It’s welcome through email to lbordelon@gannett.com . Subscribe to us at newsleader.com .

This article originally appeared on Staunton News Leader: Augusta zoning board rejects part two of Elm Spring Solar project