[16:27] This would be a good time to go ahead and move that over to our definitions section of our overall zoning code. This is some housekeeping stuff there, cross referencing between the data center ordinance, the update to this as well. And then sort

[16:49] of what we're getting to is the county policy improvement. So how do we make this code better and address things that haven't been addressed before. So things like the site on site power generation.

[16:58] and defining the emergency backup power,

[17:03] that kind of thing.

[17:06] So what can we still do, though?

[17:09] Especially use permits, still matter.

[17:11] The county can still review these on a case-by-case basis.

[17:17] Wildlife, emergency access, water soils,

[17:19] all our things that state code still allows us to use

[17:22] to judge these projects.

[17:23] And we just want to make sure that anything specific in state code we're not in conflict with in our local code.

[17:32] But there's probably a few different ways we can work to get there.

[17:36] Yep.

[17:37] I'm especially used permits that the state relax some of the applications to be by right where we would have been otherwise.

[17:49] a special use.

[17:52] It's one of the things we get to talk about here in a minute. I'll outline

[17:55] sort of, yeah, one of those pieces. Let me work with one that we approved last year about

[18:02] the land fill. Yep. This applicable or do we still get to use other ones? So any of these

[18:08] are all going to be applicable for applications received after July 1st. So that our rules

[18:14] will still apply. Yes sir.

[18:18] Why on-site generation belongs here and why it's come up recently. So the

[18:25] data center discussion came up, you know, we specified generators in our data center code,

[18:31] but we didn't specify backup generators. So that could potentially open up the opportunity

[18:37] for more on-site power generation as part of a potential project proposal. And then doing some

[18:44] some reading, I found this diagram helpful that while projects in 2024 didn't necessarily

[18:53] think about on-site power generation in 2025 over a quarter of all projects are now

[18:59] thinking about on-site power generation.

[19:02] So you can see the significant increase from year to year on that.

[19:06] So what would we want to do, go ahead and define backup power power generation, accessory

[19:17] to a lawful principle use, use for outage emergencies, commissioning, required testing,

[19:24] maintenance, limited cycling, but not used for primary power generation.

[19:30] One site power generation facility generates power as a facility function, may serve primarily

[19:37] to supplement, load manage, or grid support, and our recommendation is that it would be

[19:42] reviewed as a large scale energy facility under our ordinance, not just as an accessory

[19:48] equipment.

[19:51] Then, you know, we've started the conversation around data centers, but manufacturing,

[19:57] manufacturing, other industries, future developments may also consume large amounts of power.

[20:04] So what does that look like for emergency standby versus routine at one side?

[20:12] And it could potentially be an additional special use permit that would need to be considered

[20:17] and approved.

[20:18] Our current code provides us enough of that language that says any specific power generation

[20:26] would need to, anything aside from backup generators, I think, would need to be separately

[20:33] approved as part of the special use program. So we do have some language in there, but

[20:37] this would make it more clear that if that one-site power generation is going to happen,

[20:43] it does have to get a formal special use permit approval.

[20:50] So how do we, you know, we've been talking

[20:52] about water, we were just rap meeting, but we also were talking about pollution and how

[21:01] do we regulate some of the things that are most important to us long-term.

[21:07] So water is life is a big part of our comprehensive plan.

[21:10] Zoning allows us to have reasonable provisions to protect water, groundwater, but also may limit

[21:19] us when it comes to air emissions. That's been sort of one of the Northern

[21:25] Virginia lessons learned is the cycling up there, the timing of that when

[21:31] that happens, but wouldn't want to lose sight of it as part of this discussion.

[21:36] Either, so our water quality impact analysis, we could potentially bulk that

[21:42] definition up in the requirements that that should include. The language in

[21:48] And there could change to make sure that we're going to factor in that if there's any specific

[21:53] project related impacts, we get those identified and included.

[21:59] So the pollutant pathway review, spill, fire water, contamination monitoring, we can try

[22:05] to include that in a few different places when it comes to water.

[22:11] But that would be kind of in that definitions and requirements section for the water quality

[22:17] analysis piece.

[22:17] Can

[22:20] I clear what that's the question, this point didn't check, please.

[22:26] So the water quality impact analysis, so one of the concerns I have is the air impact

[22:35] of the on-site power generation and we don't have those authorities globally in order

[22:44] we have that expertise, but, you know, your point then is that if there are certainly

[22:51] Then air emission results that could be tied to the water quality, we do have the authorities

[23:01] and that kind of, of course, right?

[23:04] Correct.

[23:07] And then, I guess, just overall, obvious statement that, you know, this is phenomenal that

[23:13] we can get to get the talk about this.

[23:14] This is certainly, I think, beyond our expertise.

[23:17] locally we're kind of on the cutting edge a lot of this stuff we're trying to

[23:20] sort out policy and you know how to how to frame good good coding so that you

[23:27] know we don't have unintended consequences but we we're getting the job done

[23:31] too so okay so that's good I didn't know I didn't appreciate that that seems

[23:36] to be a reasonable way to approach that so

[23:41] then sort of I know that I'm talking a

[23:44] lot here at the beginning but I know you all have thoughts on this but when I

[23:49] and took a stab at emergency stand by a generator definition, took a stab at on-site power generation

[23:55] facility to specifically define this in our code.

[24:01] Should we want to move in that direction, you know, we would want to make reflected changes

[24:07] where we talk about generation and other places, but I was hoping that you know the first few

[24:17] of these we could maybe agree on and that would give us the staff direction to help generate

[24:23] an ordinance that could start to go to legal review and come back before you but move, go

[24:29] ahead and move the energy facility definitions from where they are in the energy code to the

[24:35] regular definition section in the zone code, go ahead and really review and define emergency

[24:45] the standby generation from reaching on-site power generation and go ahead and add these water

[24:50] protections through the different mechanisms that we've already talked about. And kind of proceed

[24:59] with this targeted update without rewriting the entire code but start there.

[25:06] I've got a couple more

[25:07] slides. I don't know if you want me to go through all of them and we'll come back to this or.

[25:10] Yeah, let's go through all of them.

[25:15] Right now in our code, this is how we distinguish between large-scale and small-scale energy facility,

[25:21] so a small-scale energy facility does not need, especially use permit.

[25:24] A large-scale energy facility does go ahead and leave our energy storage systems,

[25:30] our solar facility, our wind facility, but then we'll just specifically add

[25:34] or on-site power generation facility.

[25:42] We would consider it large.

[25:46] In

[25:51] this, Mr. Fagan, to your point, our code versus state code is pretty interesting.

[25:59] So we looked at acreage as part of SOAR.

[26:02] We were really concerned about what land is going to be consumed with this different use.

[26:07] But we define small scale as two acres are under and anything more than that as large scale.

[26:14] The state says one megawatt or more is going to have to require those state specific conditions.

[26:25] It doesn't open up this sort of middle ground here where somebody proposed a project larger than two acres but less than a full megawatt worth of power.

[26:33] the likelihood of that low, but it's still a big

[26:38] for an interesting application for Brenna to walk through.

[26:43] You said a megawatt was 10 acres, right?

[26:45] A megawatt generally. Well, in 2023, you know, was,

[26:50] that's what it took to have to worry about.

[26:52] So you're talking somewhere between two and 10?

[26:55] Somewhere between two and 10 would fall in this, you know,

[26:58] are they the 15 height panels?

[27:01] is they have the 25-foot height panels, maybe it's not worth talking about, but I did want to,

[27:06] you know, we got a spot, we got a spot, right here, front and center.

[27:12] So it may, you know, the question then would be, do we want to shift what our large scale and small scale

[27:18] solar definitions are, or facility definitions are, to be more aligned in the state

[27:23] So, one megawatt is what, 15.2, 22, 88.8, which is, I think, what we printed out for

[27:32] everyone.

[27:35] But then, five megawatts is what is later used in state code to talk about

[27:42] solar facilities requiring sighting agreements. 25 is used for the perennial wetland stuff

[27:52] that I was talking about, and 100 megawatts is the high-energy facilities that they also

[28:01] refer.

[28:02] So, all of our stuff is based on acreage and size in that sense, but state code is by

[28:08] megawatts.

[28:08] So, I have a trouble getting my arms around the whole project, the definition based on megawatts

[28:17] as opposed to the amount of land it's taking up.

[28:22] We're talking about land use.

[28:23] We're not talking about productivity with regard

[28:27] to the efficiency of the solar panels.

[28:30] So if they come in and say it's only a five megawatt facility

[28:37] and get the approvals, but they're chewy up, 40 acres of land,

[28:41] they fall under one versus a different deal.

[28:45] It's a list of requirements but then it's a 25 year project so how do we then they come back and they change out the efficiency of the solar panels and now it's a, you know, it's a much, it produces a whole lot more electricity and therefore it would be subject to a different standard.

[29:04] It's just, maybe everybody else is getting their arms around that. I can't seem to get my arms around that.

[29:13] No, I think that one, I think we, you know, we might have to have a couple more of these

[29:16] sessions if we were going to start shifting it to the power gen or the megawatt size because

[29:21] I think you're right.

[29:22] When we did all that research, I mean in just three years though, right, like we didn't anticipate

[29:28] this kind of energy consumer when we were thinking about developing this.

[29:33] Yeah, visual.

[29:34] It's like only made to see, you know, exactly what you're coming from, this is a little more

[29:39] abstract.

[29:42] I don't know if Jenna has any insight into some of the power, like the reason the state would use

[29:49] the

[29:53] state, maybe the immegalized person is a great because of the business.

[30:00] It's a really broad scale of energy ordinance, and it's looking at things other than the solar, the solar, then, you know, an SMR, a small modular reactor may only take up a fraction of an acre, but pretty significantly higher energy generation, and they, based on what we need to regulate that. I don't know. That may be what you're saying.

[30:21] I mean, the Wichstock project, how many make a bunch is it?

[30:28] The Endburden?

[30:29] Yeah.

[30:30] Landfill one.

[30:33] I think it was five.

[30:34] It was like a community solar, well 25 or 30 acres, right, so it would be, max would

[30:39] be five probably.

[30:40] And how many acres would be 25 or 30?

[30:42] 25 or 30?

[30:47] I like how he's respected, and I think the source focus was on the number two big idea,

[30:54] which is land and bag.

[30:55] So to the extent that we can square acreage to stay good and make sure we're not creating

[31:03] into lumber for ourselves.

[31:04] I think that's probably a good way for us to all be able to relate to it because obviously

[31:09] the solar industry is going to continue to evolve, but you know, acres and acres are awesome.

[31:19] No, the Lemme of course, we mentioned like we've reached out like DeVaco, like Joe Lurch,

[31:24] you know.

[31:24] You know, they kind of watch and follow this stuff.

[31:27] He didn't do much, I think, for Madison and resources,

[31:30] he had to pass the lounge, a little disappointed in that.

[31:33] But the NACO, I thought, did a better job, the NACO,

[31:36] but some of you may be able to give it a little insight

[31:39] on the wide awareness round

[31:41] and how others are looking at this.

[31:43] Because I think most people probably did have the acreage,

[31:46] you know, Nelson is a switch

[31:48] and just kind of get his perspective.

[31:50] So they were having these discussions.

[31:51] And that is one thing that uses these privy to is the people that do that.

[31:56] And some of the conversations we had, too, I think at the NACO level, nationally, should

[32:00] go outside the commonwealth, so maybe some other states are actually doing some of these

[32:05] things.

[32:06] Projections are starting to hop on board with, because a lot of people, big bar and stealing

[32:09] comes on and stuff.

[32:11] So they also have, so I don't know if you've reached out to them, you have, that's kind of

[32:14] start there to get maybe some clarification, maybe that's why some of this stuff was done

[32:19] and where it may be heading.

[32:22] I mean, you may have said this before, but the state's different levels of projects,

[32:29] what is that trigger within the state code for each?

[32:33] So they've been focused on, well, the 1-5 and 25 were solar-specific.

[32:41] The 100 is a data center.

[32:43] But what's the, how does the state code differ for each of these different kind of,

[32:51] you know, one more stringent than the other in terms of setting applications?

[32:56] What's the point of naming?

[32:58] I think it's a

[33:02] good question.

[33:05] There's also the tax applications on the ability to tax based on different levels,

[33:13] But it doesn't trigger different permit requirement necessarily.

[33:21] So that's what they're saying, anything over one megawatt versus where we started that

[33:27] at a smaller, two-weeker limit.

[33:30] So would we be comfortable saying our new threshold is 10 acres?

[33:35] But they don't have different criteria for evaluation between I-15 and 25.

[33:46] They all have to meet the same.

[33:48] They'll all have to meet anything over the one megawatt.

[33:51] The five megawatt is specific to the citing agreement.

[33:55] So the citing agreement is an agreement with the locality for some sort of revenue share conversation as part of the project.

[34:05] The state code says for the one megawatt projects, anything over one megawatt can be regulated

[34:15] by special exemption or a citing agreement, which was a question I had for our attorneys

[34:22] and he called and said, that's a sophisticated question, but so I think like if we just wanted

[34:29] to say anything over one megawatt is going to enter a sighting agreement. We could do that.

[34:38] Right now we say any large-scale project must enter a sighting agreement.

[34:50] So I guess curious

[34:54] one-site power generation do we want it as a separate use and do we want it as a special use

[35:01] permit or a by-right use or an allowed accessory use?

[35:12] My assumption was special use, but

[35:14] That's what my assumption is going to be, but I want to hear if somebody else.

[35:19] I would agree with that.

[35:20] Yes.

[35:23] Maybe we met with a

[35:29] company that was going to develop site at the landfill.

[35:34] And what become of that?

[35:37] Great question.

[35:39] I don't, we haven't heard from them recently.

[35:42] Rhanna, have you?

[35:43] There were.

[35:47] Yeah, they're working, I think, on access to the property and trying to figure that out.

[35:51] They

[35:54] had talked about using sheep to keep vegetation down, but there was an article in

[36:04] the Lancaster farmer about people who used sheep, but they had a special tag that went

[36:14] in the sheep's ear that would keep them within the boundary of the property.

[36:32] They have ways of doing that, but I didn't hear or see anything that would suggest that

[36:44] So they were going to, people were going to use, have to put up a bond in order to develop

[36:54] these sites to pay for decommissioning in case they go bankrupt or something.

[37:02] Is that, has that been addressed?

[37:05] Yes.

[37:06] So we, as part of our current ordinance, we're pretty specific, the biggest identification

[37:12] that we found is that the state code is actually going to, I don't want to say loosen, but it's going to loosen up our code a little bit when it comes to the year, the annual check-in.

[37:26] So we're going to go from two years to five years.

[37:29] There are some larger protections, though, in a sense that they've got to report away and transfer at least.

[37:36] And so that could be beneficial to the locality.

[37:38] It also says similar to the pre-construction condition unless otherwise agreed to by the landowner for the restoration of the land.

[37:51] I'm not sure what that's getting into the weeds a little bit.

[37:55] For the sake of it.

[37:56] Yeah, so yeah, to what degree the locality could be involved in that?

[38:03] If this is unless otherwise agreed to by the landowner, then say he's on page two,

[38:11] paragraph C, 1, 2, 4, 6 line down, maybe.

[38:17] The decommissioned plan shall provide for the removal facilities equipment from the landowner's

[38:22] property and return of the property to a useful condition similar to the pre-construction

[38:28] condition and less otherwise agreed to by the landowner.

[38:31] I

[38:37] guess I see, I

[38:42] thought we would want the land to be taken back to it.

[38:46] And I think the original condition-

[38:48] We don't agree with the decommissioning plan, and the project may not move forward.

[38:55] We would, who's on first, is this language on first, or is there language on first?

[39:01] Well, I think the great

[39:08] question, one for legal, to say, can the landowner change the agreement after,

[39:14] you know, a condition is attached to especially, well, but can we even attach a condition that

[39:21] says it must be, must be restored to as it was, when this says that the landowner and

[39:30] the developer can make a deal that we may not like, can we even put that condition on it?

[39:37] If

[39:40] the state of Virginia does decide to take the local control away,

[39:48] is that saying that

[39:50] the town of Mount Jackson and center of county will be played by the same rules, the same

[39:56] locality, that means town well and cities, all local, okay, not just county.

[40:07] That's my understanding.

[40:08] I'm

[40:15] concerned that you're talking about the state, because specifically, but one of us comes

[40:18] to returning the land back to the heart condition, and I can see cases where like I think

[40:23] the one point on our page 6, under number 4, talks about the top of the ground, the whole

[40:28] state plan and the restored back to the heart condition, where we may want to actually keep

[40:33] that study graded and not restore it back to its ability to ensure that we're working

[40:38] out for other future development opportunities.

[40:42] Yeah, no, we have the ability that flexibility previously to like sort of have that conversation about the foreign plan.

[40:48] So I think we would have a similar conversation about a decommissioning plan.

[40:53] But I think the question is still out there.

[40:58] Should the landowner agree separately to something that a later date?

[41:02] I think we still hold the Linden are responsible for the SEP.

[41:11] So it may not be in their interest to separately agree to something that would put them in violation.

[41:19] Okay, 25 years from now.

[41:23] Very few of us that are in this room tonight is going to be here.

[41:34] So what are we opening our future folks up to?

[41:40] Whether it's future staff from an enforcement perspective, whether it's a future planning

[41:45] commission, what add, I think it's a great, no it's a great question to bring up the legal

[41:53] Because I think you're right, there's an inherent tension in that.

[41:57] And oftentimes you'll see at the next session they come in and clean up, things like this

[42:01] that attorneys from around the state bring up and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, we've left way

[42:05] too much open for this kind of thing.

[42:09] I think at the minimum, the bond can only be pursued for what we know, which is the original

[42:15] condition, right?

[42:16] So, you know, if the bond is correctly created, then at least it's going to be a cover

[42:23] of that.

[42:23] And then if there are, we get caught where, you know, the state's saying allow them

[42:27] to make modifications.

[42:29] There's still enough resources there to, it's not a resource issue, it's more of just

[42:34] the authority to keep it rated because it's going to move into another user or something.

[42:41] So, we got a lot of staff work, staff energy to put into this.

[42:46] You can see these things, these are so dynamic, you know, power generation, the way solar

[42:53] just changes so quickly.

[42:54] I mean, you really, you know, this time next year when General Assemblyman, I'm sure

[42:59] that, you know, because there's a lot of things that didn't, but, you know, like you said,

[43:02] they're still, so it's one of those things that you really got to stay on top of it, it's

[43:06] one of, you know, I don't, maybe this is too broad of a statement, but we did so much work

[43:10] for the solar committee.

[43:13] I was reluctant to just take the draft from the attorney

[43:16] because he was like, you're sort of the standard one

[43:18] that I'm sharing because it kind of all that nuance

[43:25] that we put into the development of that code.

[43:28] I don't want to hold on to it just to hold on to it either.

[43:30] But I think they're trying to split the baby here

[43:34] with making sure our code is consistently

[43:37] with state code, but also that level of specificity is still cleared for any

[43:42] application.

[44:08] So do you need an answer on these definitions? So I mean if we don't

[44:16] have to stay so it's 30. But if we if the group is comfortable with us sort of

[44:23] moving forward with this plan then we'll start to make those changes and start

[44:28] running stuff through legal sort of as I was developing this I was starting to work in our code

[44:33] from a draft since but like I said I talked to the attorney today over the phone but he hasn't

[44:42] seen sort of what direction this might look like so we'd love to get that in front of him to get back

[44:48] to you all not necessarily by next Thursday but so that you could start to see what is all this mean

[44:57] and how it fits together

[45:00] Of course, Gary has in front of him a rack letter, as well when it comes to data center specific recommendations from RAC. So making sure those are incorporated as part of the data center update at the same time. So trying to finesse this all together. And I kind of assume that we're going to want to see everything done before public hearing. So it will probably be, you know, at the October meeting, looking,

[45:28] looking at the code and then a November meeting for like a public hearing on

[45:32] something like that. I would obviously probably at least because you're right we

[45:40] don't want a gut existing with the existing cut but

[45:46] I thought you wanted to

[45:48] I would thought you wanted to specifically talk about standby generator on site

[45:52] fire generation and where to put the definition. So yeah I wanted people to

[45:59] sort of have a chance to look at it and see what that is.

[46:02] I'm sure there are folks that we kind of slice together

[46:07] this from a few different places.

[46:09] So making sure that that backup generation

[46:12] for any kind of facility is going to be permitted.

[46:15] But in our data center code, we were specific about cycling,

[46:19] when they can test, how often they can do that,

[46:22] those kinds of things.

[46:24] So those codes would still apply, but we would change that

[46:26] that from generators, which could encompass theoretically anything to emergency standby generator.

[46:34] And then on-site power,

[46:41] Jenna mentioned SMRs earlier, I think we've got to flush this

[46:46] out a little bit more to start to, what do we mean by on-site power generation and what

[46:54] the requirements would be.

[46:55] But I mean, that's all new to us, right?

[46:57] I mean, we haven't looked on have anything on that.

[46:59] It's correct.

[47:00] And it does seem like it's coming in different applications.

[47:04] What are doing?

[47:05] On the emergency standby generator, you know, we've got it

[47:08] under the data center now and pretty stringent.

[47:13] If you want, were you saying before maybe take it out

[47:17] of the data centers and make it more part

[47:22] of our universal code?

[47:23] So, not all the data centers but out of our energy ordinance.

[47:28] So our energy ordinance would, instead of 168-69, 169, we would move all those definitions

[47:36] into our regular zoning definition section, which would be, to me, more of a housekeeping,

[47:43] kind of issue, but these would be two new definitions to the entire zoning code.

[47:47] I guess my question is sort of, are we going to have one set of criteria for emergency

[47:54] standby generators wherever it is, or is it going to be more stringent possibly under

[48:00] the data center code than it would be in other applications?

[48:07] Right now, I think data center code is the only place that it would be more stringent

[48:12] be regulated.

[48:16] But is that something, I mean, it's something that we could look at incorporating

[48:19] into this energy code section so that any emergency, so one thing that we would want,

[48:27] so in our energy ordinance, we do currently have language around noise for solar facilities,

[48:33] right? We talked about some of the houses nearby and sort of that team sound from transformers near

[48:39] near the sites and we put in a DBA number.

[48:46] We've learned a lot more about noise.

[48:48] We have a really robust noise section

[48:52] in our data center ordinance.

[48:55] I was going to copy and paste that

[48:56] to replace the language here

[48:58] so that they would be consistent

[49:00] and you wouldn't have two different standards

[49:02] within the same method.

[49:04] And that's what kind of makes sense to me

[49:06] to me, to me, this would be an energy that's applicable to anything is generating value.

[49:11] I just wonder, I don't know all the applications in the county where we have emergency standby

[49:17] generators, the office, the hospitals, rooms, and other places like that.

[49:22] If we make the standards as strict as we are proposing for the data centers, do they become

[49:29] two-strict for some of these other applications and make it so burdensome that I

[49:37] don't know. Well it'd be a, we're in a, not to put you on the spot but if that were the case

[49:44] we'd be able to think about putting emergency standby generators as part of an

[49:48] allowing accessory use for probably all of our zoning districts but then you're

[49:56] right, there would be a standard set and we may want to look at what that would look like.

[50:03] I mean, we can share with you that for many Armenian factors, for instance, if they

[50:07] lose power and they don't have a backup generator, even if that equipment is lost for a second,

[50:15] some of them is ours before they're able to restart that equipment, it goes through the process

[50:20] of getting it up and running. So if our manufacturer is losing power for even a short moment and

[50:28] it quickly comes back on, it can be, it can have huge consequences for their productivity.

[50:38] It's pretty standard for most of them.

[50:44] I think I would echo Mr. Fagan's point is we're in a scenario where we have, you know, specific code written tailored for really one unique application.

[50:55] I think that that was a, you know, the correct way to approach that, we've often talked

[51:02] about how to bring some of these new zoning concepts across all zoning, but I would want

[51:08] to be, I would not want to have an unattended negative implication for any other sector

[51:14] that's using a backup emergency generator.

[51:16] So I think that I would like to think we could keep the more stringent specified, as unique

[51:23] kind of limitations for data centers and spelt out in that chapter so that we know that that's applicable because like a duty cycle may not apply to a

[51:32] manufacturing facility for milk, but you know they have maybe their own unique aspects and then I just would want us to then either through the

[51:41] some sort of outreach to industry to make sure that you know are there other best practices or other terms or concepts we need to incorporate into this you know we're not specifying the type of

[51:53] energy generation, but maybe there's some nuance between a diesel versus propane generator.

[51:59] And so understanding that fully before we lock this into code, I think would be a prudent step.

[52:06] But I think that the eventual goal of trying to align them is possible. But I think in the case

[52:13] of data centers, it's such a unique rapidly evolving space where I think we need to keep those

[52:18] was really locked in in this period of time.

[52:22] I would agree.

[52:23] And I think that's the way to go, because this data center

[52:29] phenomenon has barred to what we're at, to my opinion.

[52:35] And so I think you're right.

[52:36] I think public perception is they're

[52:38] taking this thing serious.

[52:40] But on the other hand, when we move forward,

[52:43] could we have like a tier two type of emergency, you know, back up that we have in the code

[52:51] that if an industry comes in and looks at it, we'll have something to point to them.

[52:55] And this is what we have, and we'll have in our tool bottle if we need it.

[52:59] I mean, for me working on this thing, you know, why come back and reinvent the wheel six months

[53:04] down the road, if a prospective industry is requesting some emergency back up?

[53:12] Yeah, it's not something to your point we've regulated before, so I think having a definition

[53:17] to differentiate between the on-site power generation and that emergency backup is important

[53:23] but you're right as far as what the restrictions are around that may not be defined just

[53:29] yet.

[53:31] And there are, of course, industries or experts in the emergency backup field so we could

[53:38] also reject them and ask them, you know, or there are other terminology or

[53:41] pieces that we might think about or include, you know, I don't know, it's adding more

[53:46] tasks to the, to the project, but just it's for due diligence.

[53:53] Well, and even if the, some of those requirements that we don't regulate that,

[54:00] like the cycling and stuff, we hadn't regulated that before, it'd been so

[54:06] specific but yeah is that a restriction and maybe the industry folks may say

[54:12] like actually that's a fair point that you might want to protect your

[54:15] community with so but if someone comes in today and asks to stay up about the

[54:21] backup system what do you tell what do you have you have in criteria any what

[54:27] would you have run or somebody's at the town probably just you know size and

[54:34] appropriately appropriately for your project. Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, I think to

[54:41] to Jenna's point, you know, the manufacturers, the industry who needs it is

[54:46] going to build it into their site plan, build it into their building plans,

[54:49] and otherwise they'd follow the building code and make sure that the

[54:52] electrics hooked up properly, you know, all that kind of stuff would just follow

[54:56] up a notch, you know, we get permission. No, I think that yeah, generally those are

[55:02] You're considered sort of by right, you need that for your operations.

[55:08] I was just going to say maybe just, you know, I have a property hotel property as a stand by a generator.

[55:14] I would not want to comply with the data center requirements, you know, to exactly to your point.

[55:20] But the big issue is really the number of generators.

[55:23] You know, your most uses that are just using, you know, a generator, maybe even just run part of their power, just going to have one.

[55:31] that's when you get into the, you know, having, you know, 20 of them.

[55:35] That's what that 100 megawatt need versus, yeah, like whatever you're normal.

[55:39] Yeah, you're just running, you're just running critical services.

[55:42] You know, emergency lights elevate, one elevator, that type of thing.

[55:45] So, but anyway, it sounds like it's fair point.

[55:47] Keeping it.

[55:48] Well, in the further drill into that, you know, one of the things that,

[55:51] depending on the type of fuel that you used, you know,

[55:54] if we stay with the conventional fossil fuel power,

[55:57] you're either on a pipeline or you're on a store fuel.

[56:00] So, you know, when you start looking at store fuel, depending on the size of the unit,

[56:03] you may have a significant fuel storage solution.

[56:07] So something we probably not ready to regulate in the past two, but, you know, a graceful

[56:12] way to kind of talk about that, too, like I'm sure there's other interesting regulations

[56:17] that, like, you know, address fuel storage, but, like, you know, what are they, you know,

[56:22] do we reference them, speaking of, you know, you know, you get into EPA and do you stuff

[56:28] fuel storage?

[56:33] So yeah, the next time you would see one site power, you know, we'll have a page page and a half of sort of

[56:41] Those kind of things started starting to get outlined

[56:43] You know the types of

[56:46] One-site power generation

[56:48] Where those setback requirements those kinds of things that would be part of any other

[57:07] energy is increasing higher and higher on that list of priorities that are

[57:11] businesses looking for in terms of time. He always here these days, time to get up

[57:16] and running is like one of the most critical things. Well right now, energies

[57:20] and short supply. So that is one of the things that industries are really looking

[57:23] at. Where is the power? You're looking at where the power is. It used to be where

[57:27] the workforce is and that's still critical, but it should be more towards

[57:31] where its power is.

[57:34] So while I know this all comes up, because the data centers

[57:36] we're seeing more and more made in factors.

[57:38] In fact, thank for scalars, of course,

[57:40] of the main thing we hear about when it comes to data centers

[57:45] and the huge energy usage that they have.

[57:48] But in some cases, there are many manufacturers

[57:50] that are utilizing more energy than data centers.

[57:53] We had a project lead come in yesterday

[57:55] that actually was requiring a gigabyte of energy

[58:00] within four years, not at a center, right?

[58:05] So we're looking at manufacturing projects as well

[58:07] that require more and more.

[58:10] So just keep that in the back of your mind.

[58:12] If we are not forward also in terms of thinking about access

[58:15] to energy, we are going to probably hit a point at some point

[58:18] where we are not able to take on industry

[58:20] because we don't have the capacity.

[58:23] And just, you know, a play that we've always had

[58:25] to hit a little bit on this, I think there is also

[58:28] consideration here from the public that, you know, if we're having to build out for their

[58:33] transmission and all of these things that's causing my energy crisis to come up, or be increased

[58:38] as well, having on stage generation where they're powering your own facility, maybe a way

[58:43] of getting around to catching the cost on things.

[58:47] Yeah,

[58:55] I guess I've echoed what Ms. Taylor said.

[58:57] I mean, we went in our outreach to the Virginia Association counties and their expert, we're

[59:02] way out in the front edge of this.

[59:04] So, you know, finding a way to, like, you know, maybe, you know, what we'd call it by for

[59:09] cutting down.

[59:10] We had to recognize it all involved, but, you know, have something that, you know, helps

[59:15] us understand kind of our priorities, but, I don't know that we want to become the leading

[59:21] zoning expert on, on, say, power generation, you know, who, you know, so, yeah, we didn't

[59:30] get much back.

[59:30] No, Joe didn't get much there.

[59:34] Other NACA resources were better to set out than them.

[59:38] Because he had more, he had more different states and stuff to get a little bit more.

[59:44] And then we get the one-side power area, that right now would be in the energy ordinance.

[59:51] So it would be, in the energy ordinance, it would be a reference course to the data center.

[59:57] Well later it would be

[1:00:00] If they generate their own power, which I know, that's what, to the jitter's point, I think that's, I think what's going to see more of. People generate their own power, because that's, I mean, it's happening at the national level and just trying to build there. Adding it to that sort of, that these are going to be considered large, you know, even if your project is two megawatts instead of 100 megawatts, we're going to consider if you're doing on-site power generation as a separate use that needs approval as part of a project.

[1:00:29] That's correct.

[1:00:29] Okay.

[1:00:30] And since it was, it would require that as a special use.

[1:00:32] Correct.

[1:00:33] And then I'm sure you'll build out all those other criteria that we would use, require,

[1:00:39] in order for them to apply for that.

[1:00:42] Correct.

[1:00:42] Okay.

[1:00:46] Which would look, I mean, essentially, you know, having walked through, was it just in the

[1:00:50] January of this year that we approved the solar?

[1:00:53] You know, they're 250-page submittal that was part of that application, if a large scale energy

[1:01:00] project would be what we would expect for any one site power generation is right those kinds

[1:01:06] of analyses so that the planning commission and the board has the most information to make the

[1:01:10] best informed to send you know your thoughts and your initial preliminary versions going to require

[1:01:17] clone many of the same components from data centers like have a not just the decommissioned bomb but

[1:01:22] have a puppet all those sorts of things it would be part I think that's part of the large skills

[1:01:29] energy stuff anyway so yeah it would be I

[1:01:40] guess the genus point too is do we

[1:01:42] want to bring in our energy partners like we did with solar they may have some

[1:01:47] unique perspectives it may be worth sort of flushing through this once and

[1:01:52] then sharing it with them to I mean I don't think I should have out of that

[1:01:56] cooperative doesn't do generation-like transmission but they have a generation

[1:01:59] and armed. I think it would act maybe. And then, of course, the media. So I mean, you

[1:02:04] have a version and then we'd reflect on it as well.

[1:02:18] So there's also a change to screening

[1:02:20] and fencing number nine.

[1:02:27] So it drops to like, five, one, five foot. I think we were trying

[1:02:34] to get this standard, you know, solid looking player that was planted and they set three

[1:02:43] three feet instead of four, and there must be 25 to 50 feet wide, which I think might be

[1:02:49] bigger than what we've actually have in our state. I think some of that buffer stuff

[1:02:56] is what we were trying to build out from data center one that isn't complete yet, so we'll

[1:02:59] try to make those consistent. Well, but we also want to screen from the solar

[1:03:20] So you're going to take these and massage the code to try to get a consistent with the

[1:03:28] state and then come back to us with recommended language.

[1:03:32] And I'm going to work with the legal team, like, if we put in a caveat at the beginning

[1:03:37] of our code and always don't touch everything else, can we just say this

[1:03:48] language in the

[1:03:48] bottom left for any projects that meet solar photovoltaic project subject to

[1:03:54] Virginia code and those rules will be applicable or do we need to say

[1:03:58] specifically for screening and printing except for solar projects this is our

[1:04:05] expectation and so yeah that's that massaging will take place with that

[1:04:11] recommended best practice with me.

[1:04:40] How do we, I'm

[1:04:43] going to be careful in this one.

[1:04:55] Number 15. Now how can this come back in bias?

[1:05:06] So I think what I'm identifying is that

[1:05:09] something that we talked about with them is the state code, so it gives us enough language

[1:05:18] to play with, I think our 50-acre limit is still okay, but I basically want to triple

[1:05:26] check that to your key point.

[1:05:29] It says right here that the landowner can change it at any time, you know, make sure there's

[1:05:33] nothing like that hidden in there that wouldn't invalidate the 50-acre gap.

[1:05:40] Well, and then going back to the definition question, which I think the group's agreement

[1:05:45] was keeping it into two acres, it was like if we have acreage in there in our definitions

[1:05:50] and it also ties into a cap that you know we're not trying to parse like you know well you

[1:05:55] know is it you know how many megawatts is a you know a 50 acre site which is real work again

[1:06:01] it's back to the cotton land you know we're locked in on on that land component but hopefully

[1:06:05] you'll you'll find a way through that dilemma yes well

[1:06:14] with that I'll sort of I'll move forward

[1:06:15] We're drafting a version to share with legal and then start going back and forth, but

[1:06:21] I think to your point with Neko and some of these other resources, this is new to them

[1:06:26] too.

[1:06:27] So this may be one of those things where you know, what's moving target.

[1:06:33] Exactly.

[1:06:33] And I do think our code is so robust that a lot of this applies versus if we didn't have

[1:06:42] You know a robust code that we just be like okay, let's follow the state standard

[1:06:45] So I think it you know in a way as a credit to the to the level of detail that we put in a few years ago

[1:06:53] so

[1:06:55] We won't rush this either, but we'll try to make sure that it sort of meets that intent from that 2023

[1:07:02] Who

[1:07:05] knows maybe Brinnell be presenting

[1:07:07] at the next

[1:07:09] We're planning conference about rural locality's managing state code changes.

[1:07:17] We're flodders.

[1:07:18] This is how you handle it.

[1:07:26] So

[1:07:29] is there a general?

[1:07:30] I guess can I ask.

[1:07:31] Just general consensus to move forward with what was presented tonight.

[1:07:35] The generator draft and we'll come back in the future.

[1:07:45] for us to pull it all together between the data center work and energy code my hope would

[1:07:50] be that you know by October we've got a draft that we can that we can share or workshop

[1:07:57] and then whether we think it's ready for prime time or or not we'll at least have something

[1:08:02] to work with.

[1:08:02] the wall softly. Yeah, it's right, it's right, it's right, it's right. Yeah, you're right.

[1:08:09] Sure. I'll do it right and tweak it. Well, we'll continue working. Obviously, we've got

[1:08:15] a lot of, a lot of things that we're working on at the moment. So, we'll, we'll keep the pedal down

[1:08:20] and one

[1:08:25] thing is, if it's doable, when you're, when you're making the tweaks, if we can identify

[1:08:32] by what it was currently and when it's gonna look like that way, we can look at it and say

[1:08:38] okay, it said ABC before, now it says ABCDE, okay, we didn't completely wipe everything out.

[1:08:48] No, absolutely.

[1:08:48] We'll do it with truck changes.

[1:08:50] An version.

[1:08:55] Thanks.

[1:08:57] Any other discussion?

[1:09:02] Gary, anything dead?

[1:09:03] No, we're good.

[1:09:06] Anybody else?

[1:09:08] Go in once, Mark, anything?

[1:09:12] I'm asking you to let go of me.

[1:09:16] Go for sure of love.

[1:09:20] Just Ferguson, anything?

[1:09:23] Okay.

[1:09:24] We're adjourned.

[1:09:29] Mark, sorry.

[1:09:30] I need to get some holes there.

[1:09:33] Oh no, I got no need here too.

[1:09:35] Yeah, I better turn it into a game show.

[1:09:38] Well, I'm so glad you're doing it.

[1:09:40] Yeah.

[1:09:41] Okay, let's go.

[1:09:43] Yeah.

[1:09:46] Okay.

[1:09:48] Thanks, Tommy.

[1:09:50] Bye, Debbie.

[1:09:52] Bye, Debbie.

[1:09:53] Bye, Debbie.

[1:09:54] Bye, Debbie.

[1:09:55] I don't know how to do it, but I think why am I just going to get some peace.

[1:09:59] I don't know how to do it.

[1:10:01] I don't know how to do it.

[1:10:01] Well, I didn't think that.

Planning Commission Work Session 8/27/26

Transcript