The 2026 session of the Virginia General Assembly unfolded with a clear direction, even if it did not feel that way at the outset. Early conversations were defined by uncertainty, with open questions about the lengths legislation would go and what it might mean for local authority. As bills began moving through committees, that uncertainty calmed, and a consistent theme emerged across discussions on solar, energy storage, shared solar and agrivoltaics. The focus was not on imposing requirements on counties, but on giving them a workable framework they could apply based on their own priorities, existing ordinances and community expectations.
By the middle of session, that approach became more defined. Legislation advanced in a way that balanced structure with flexibility, providing clearer guardrails without creating one-size-fits-all mandates. Lawmakers are increasingly focused on predictability, both for local governments evaluating projects and for stakeholders navigating the approval process. That shift helped move conversations away from broad concerns and toward practical implementation, while still reinforcing that local decision-making would remain central to how these projects move forward.
This was especially evident in the Battery Energy Storage System bills, HB891 and SB443, where the conversation shifted from whether storage should be allowed to how it should be integrated. The final outcome reflects that shift, but it also introduces a level of nuance that counties will examine closely. Battery storage can now be added as an accessory use on parcels with approved solar projects without triggering a new land-use process, creating a more efficient pathway for pairing storage with generation. At the same time, localities retain authority over safety standards, emergency response planning and voluntary siting agreements. It is worth noting that, under the governor’s amendments, any Battery Energy Storage System added must not exceed the solar facility’s capacity. As counties begin to interpret this framework, many will carefully examine how these provisions interact with existing ordinances, where discretion still applies and how to ensure that the legislation functions as a rubric for evaluation rather than a mechanism that limits local review.
In parallel, HB711, the solar ordinance standards bill, establishes clearer expectations around setbacks, decommissioning and project oversight, addressing long-standing inconsistencies in how projects have been reviewed across jurisdictions. The bill provides a more uniform baseline, but it does not remove counties’ ability to shape outcomes. Instead, it provides a baseline for counties to refine local standards, incorporate community input and apply conditions that reflect local priorities. As with the storage legislation, this bill will likely be examined in detail by local governments looking to understand where flexibility remains, how requirements can be strengthened and how to ensure that local authority continues to guide decision-making.
HB895 builds on this by directing the development of model ordinances for energy storage, creating a structured but adaptable framework aligned with national safety standards and informed by stakeholder input. For many counties, this will serve as both a resource and a reference point, particularly as storage becomes a more common component of energy development. At the same time, these model ordinances are not intended to be adopted wholesale. They are a starting point, and localities will evaluate them closely, identifying where adjustments are needed to reflect local land use patterns, emergency response capacity and community expectations.
Across all of these bills, there is an underlying reality that will shape what comes next. It is the expectation that counties are not approaching this legislation passively. They will read it closely, test its boundaries, and identify areas that need clarification or refinement. That scrutiny is not a flaw in the process; it is a reflection of Virginia’s approach to governance, where local control and local decision-making remain central. These bills are best understood as establishing a rubric for evaluating projects, not a system for automatic approval, and their success will depend on how effectively they are interpreted and applied at the local level.
Alongside the legislative process, engagement outside of formal hearings played an important role in shaping how these issues were understood. Throughout the session, Energy Right convened the Conservative Energy Caucus, creating a space for direct interaction between industry participants and policymakers. This was not just about explaining policy. It was about giving decision-makers a clearer view of the people behind these projects. Landowners considering whether to host development, workers building and maintaining facilities, neighbors living near project sites, and county leaders responsible for implementation all had a place in the conversation.
Those perspectives helped ground policy discussions in real-world experience. Legislators were able to better understand how projects affect local tax bases, how land can remain productive through approaches like agrivoltaics, what safety and operational considerations look like over time and how energy storage supports grid reliability during periods of peak demand or system stress. Just as importantly, these conversations created space to address common misconceptions early and directly, replacing assumptions with practical insight. That level of engagement ensured that when decisions were made, they were informed not just by policy language, but by a more complete understanding of the communities and stakeholders involved.
By the end of the session, the outcome was more than a collection of individual bills. There was a clear shift toward equipping localities with the tools and clarity needed to engage with energy projects on their own terms, while reinforcing the role they play in shaping how and where development occurs.
Thanks to the work done this session, counties now have stronger guidance on structuring ordinances, evaluating projects and incorporating emerging technologies such as energy storage. Just as importantly, they have more confidence in the process itself, with clearer expectations around how projects should be reviewed, approved and managed over time.
Confidence and clear expectations. Not something that is often spoken about between counties and development. However, we look for it to be part of the everyday nomenclature among leaders, citizens, staff and stakeholders. Confidence to know that the guardrails, policies, planning and staff have the tools to tackle each and every project to come before them. And the clear expectations for each developer so that a pathway to a cleaner, more secure and reliable grid can happen succinctly and as efficiently as the sun shining on the panels.
Jack Wilson is director of communications at Energy Right.
