By Patrick Hurston
More than 150 people packed into a community meeting Tues., Nov. 13, seeking more answers about MN8 Energy’s proposed 1,500-acre utility scale solar project proposed for Old Fields.
The gathering was led by longtime Old Fields resident and farmer Miriam Leatherman, who opened by thanking those who came to “show that you care about farmland. It shows you care about the environment. It shows you care about community, your county, and your state.” Leatherman framed the night as an effort to help residents “understand the vastness of this proposed MN8 Energy solar project” and to lay out “a process to influence the whole project.”
The proposal, first reported by the Examiner last month, would place solar arrays across multiple properties in a patchwork of industrial, agricultural, and residential zones. Many attendees said they had unanswered questions about its size, placement, and the long-term impacts on farmland, viewsheds, water, and property values.
County Planner Melissa Scott gave a presentation that included the project’s proposed site map, an overview of solar development, and an explanation of the County’s zoning and the process for amending it. Scott said she’s been researching solar siting issues for two years and has become “kind of a local expert,” presenting across the state on the rise of utility-scale projects. Speaking first as a private citizen and not County Planner, she said, “I do not believe that these projects are best suited for our agricultural land,” noting that West Virginia has “400,000 acres of degraded land…identified by agencies for projects just like this.”
Scott explained that public utilities, such as FirstEnergy, Potomac Edison, or Allegheny Power are bound by law and the Public Service Commission to site projects like this on degraded land, or land that has lost much of its productive value. MN8, however, as a private company is not similarly restricted.
Scott also emphasized that Hardy County’s zoning, enacted in 1973, was designed to “protect agriculture” and is the main tool residents have to influence the outcome of the project. “Zoning right now…does not allow this use, except for in industrial zones,” she said. Only about 500 acres of the current proposal fall inside that zone. “So, as you might imagine, this company is looking to change the ordinance.”
She outlined three ways zoning can be amended, including a petition process initiated by nearby property owners. For MN8 to move forward with a rezoning request through that avenue, she said, they would need signatures from “50 percent of the property owners within 250 feet” of the proposed site.
She juxtaposed Hardy’s zoning to neighboring counties. “So, these projects have been built in Hampshire County. You know, they have their windmills in Mineral County.
They’re coming in Grant County. They’re coming in all around us. None of those counties have any path to stop this.”
Scott noted that state policy could also shape the outcome. In the last legislative session, she said, lawmakers introduced bills that would have stripped counties of their ability to regulate energy projects. Those bills failed but could return.
Much of Tuesday’s discussion centered not only on zoning but on long-term risks, including decommissioning, farmland conversion, and the uncertainty surrounding the future of utility-scale solar. Scott said planning commissioners worry that removing thousands of acres from agricultural production “for a full generation is going to limit the likelihood that it’s ever going to return to ag,” especially if future farmers leave the land.
Decommissioning also remains an open question. “We are very, very worried about that,” she said, “because the reclamation measures that they have taken for coal mining and gas wells in the state of West Virginia in the past, they don’t have a good track record.”
Residents raised concerns about water use, heat, wildlife, local history, job benefits and the possibility of eminent domain. Several questioned whether Old Fields would receive any measurable benefit from the project. One resident said, “We get nothing,” noting the small number of projected permanent jobs. According to MN8, the project will create approximately 300 temporary construction jobs and about nine permanent jobs.
Others compared the current moment to earlier community battles. One attendee recalled years of organized opposition that shifted the planned Corridor H route away from Old Fields. Another noted prior successful historic-preservation challenges and asked whether federal funding could restrict development in designated historic districts.
While Scott acknowledged the company has been “very accommodating to agriculture” in some aspects of its design, she returned repeatedly to the need for public participation in zoning hearings, in the state legislative process, and in pushing state agencies to engage. “We need to ask our Department of Agriculture. We need to ask our Farm Bureau,” she said. “They need to weigh in.”
As the meeting closed, Leatherman urged everyone to remain aware and engaged. “We can voice our opinions to the Commissioners,” she said. “I don’t know how many are here tonight, but that’s a lot of voices. If their phones never stop ringing, that’s ok,” she said.
Attendees were also given the option of signing one of three petitions made available at the meeting. The first was for property owners adjacent to the proposed project footprint. She reminded the group that if 51 percent of neighboring property owners oppose the project, MN8 will be unable to alter existing zoning. A second petition was for county residents not neighboring the site. A third was for those in support of the project. Leatherman also said letters to County Commissioners and the Planning Commission will be available for people to sign.
“I can’t stand in front of a bulldozer by myself,” she said. “So, we have got to stay together.”
MN8 has launched a web site for the project at www.oldfieldssolar.com and a Facebook page under the same name was created on June 2.
