I know nothing about the issues with Energix, nor can I comment on them.  I would like to comment on the proposed regulation changes. 

As background I am a Principal at Sunworks NC and of Virginia Solar LLC.   As principal of Virginia Solar, I formerly managed all engineering, development, permitting and interconnection processes regarding the company’s solar projects.  In prior years, I developed solar projects receiving 13 local zoning approvals and 10 state PBR approvals. 

On the proposed regulations I would like to make the following comments on the section “"As early in the project development process as practicable” should be further defined as "and at least three months before the mandatory public meeting or six months before any county board of supervisor vote.” Any refiling of Notices of Intent after a special use permit is issued should trigger a restart of the public meeting and SUP vote, or DEQ will not consider the SUP submitted with PBRs as valid.”

I agree with intent but would change the language.  I would further define “As early in the project development process as practicable” with “and the earlier of (i) at least three months before the PBR required mandatory public meeting or (ii) at the time of filling of a zoning confirmation letter, permit application for the facility or the equivalent thereof with the relevant local permitting authority.”

I believe this matches the intent of having the NOI filled before the local permitting authority acts on the matter and well prior to the public hearing required by the PBR.  The issues with the original language are:

1. There are multiple jurisdictions where the board of supervisors may not hear solar applications (Henrico county being a notable example of this, it goes to the board of zoning appeals.)  Hence why the original language referencing the board of supervisors does not make sense. 
2. There are land use categories in most counties where solar is allowed by right and therefore no land use permit is required (manufacturing or industrial land in most counties allow solar by right). 
3. Predicting when a county will hear a matter is next to impossible as there are frequent delays, they can schedule additional meetings with only 2 weeks’ notice, they can change their schedule frequently, hence why 6 months before the county vote makes no sense as a practical matter. 
4. Solar projects can be built in cities which makes the reference in the original language to county incorrect.  I have done one in a town.  Using permitting authority fixes this issue. 

I am completely in disagreement with sentence “Any refiling of Notices of Intent after a special use permit is issued should trigger a restart of the public meeting and SUP vote, or DEQ will not consider the SUP submitted with PBRs as valid.”  And think it should be removed.  I disagree with this language for the following reasons:

1. I do not believe that DEQ has the legal authority or ability under the PBR statute to invalidate a duly issued and legally enforceable local permit.  Further neither DEQ, nor the project developer, can force a county to rehear a project where nothing has been changed since its previous approval. 
2. The local jurisdiction having authority are already required to provide public notice of all of their meetings and the agenda for said meetings under state statute 15.2-1813.  The NOI process is not nor never intended to supplant the notices required of the county nor to inform the local populace of solar projects in its local.  If people have an issue with the notices they receive about solar projects they need to address those issues with their county representatives.  I do agree that certain counties do a better job of alerting neighbors of projects than others but those county choices. 
3. It is well within the authority of the local jurisdiction permitting agency to makes changes to a project such as restricting the land available to be used for a solar project, restricting the number of MW installed, the technologies that can be used, and even the location of the solar facility (all of these have happened to me).  This is all information normally provided as part of the NOI.  Therefore, a local jurisdiction which approves a permit may very well cause the NOI to be out of date.  The DEQ cannot fault a county for using its authority nor the developer as it is a matter outside of their control. 
4. The part about the PBR public meeting being restarted if a NOI is refilled is already required by the existing PBR language.  The draft of the PBR application must be posted at a public location.  This draft includes the local jurisdictional approval and the NOI. The only portion of the draft PBR application which can’t be finalized is the portion on the public comment period itself.  Hence if the applicant does not have the local permit in place or subsequently changes the NOI the materials provided to the public would be incorrect.  Therefore, it is already well within the authority of DEQ to require a new public comment period and public meeting, in these circumstances. 

For all of the reasons above I think the language should be changed to “As early in the project development process as practicable and the earlier of (i) at least three months before the PBR required mandatory public meeting or (ii) at the time of filling of a zoning confirmation letter, permit application for the facility or the equivalent thereof with the relevant local permitting authority.”  The second proposed sentence should be struck in its entirety.