A BILL to amend and reenact § 3.2-300 of the Code of Virginia, relating to right to farm; solar panels.
HB1091 amends Virginia’s right-to-farm definitions in § 3.2-300 to expressly include certain solar-related activity within the definition of an “agricultural operation.” Under the bill, an agricultural operation would include an operation devoted to the production of electricity from solar panels when that solar generation occurs concurrently with the bona fide production of crops, animals, or fowl. The bill also retains the existing definition of agricultural operation for traditional farming, livestock housing, and silviculture-related production.
The practical effect is to extend the statutory protections and framework associated with Virginia’s right-to-farm law to some agrivoltaic projects, where solar panels and agricultural production occur on the same land. By tying solar electricity production to concurrent bona fide agricultural production, the bill appears designed to distinguish these mixed-use operations from standalone solar facilities and to place them within the agricultural category for purposes of the chapter.
HB1091 would change state law by broadening the statutory definition of “agricultural operation” in the Code of Virginia, § 3.2-300, to cover certain dual-use solar-and-farming operations. This could affect how right-to-farm protections apply to farms that host solar panels while continuing crop, livestock, or fowl production, potentially influencing zoning, nuisance, and agricultural classification issues for landowners, farmers, and solar developers. The bill does not appear to alter the broader right-to-farm structure, but it would create a clearer legal basis for agrivoltaics within the agricultural code.
The available legislative history suggests a generally neutral-to-supportive posture toward the bill’s concept, but not enough recorded debate is available to identify strong public arguments for or against it. The bill was referred to the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee and later continued to the next session by voice vote, which indicates it did not advance immediately and may have been left unresolved rather than decisively rejected. The lack of recorded votes or transcripts limits the ability to gauge broader sentiment beyond procedural handling.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the right-to-farm definition and whether solar generation should be treated as part of agriculture when paired with farming. Supporters would likely view the bill as encouraging agrivoltaics, farm income diversification, and preservation of agricultural land use, while opponents may worry about expanding agricultural protections to energy production or about whether the solar component could complicate land-use regulation. Because no committee transcript is available, the specific positions of legislators, farmers, utilities, solar developers, or local governments are not documented in the provided materials.