Firefly (Recurrent Energy) asks Pittsylvania County for one-year SUP extension; board asks for 30-day review
February 18, 2026 | Pittsylvania County, Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Recurrent Energy representatives asked the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 17 to extend the Firefly solar project's special-use permit (SUP) from its current 07/01/2026 expiration to 07/01/2027 while the company completes design and permitting work.
Adam Peterson, permitting manager for Recurrent Energy, told the board the Firefly project covers roughly 3,000 acres in the Dan River district, of which about 1,300 acres would be fenced and the facility could produce up to 150 megawatts. Peterson said the project has executed a county-required site/signing agreement tied to a revised county ordinance and described milestone payments to the county: $2,250,000 at construction start and roughly $10,000,000 over a 35-year operating life (the company presented the combined total as $12,200,000).
Peterson and Jace (Jace) Walker, Recurrent’s director of development, said the company is at about 60% design and needs to reach a 90% civil design milestone to secure state stormwater permits and a county building permit. They emphasized that terrain-following tracker technology now available will reduce grading and stormwater impacts on the site’s rolling topography and that earlier engineering-procurement-construction (EPC) firms left the project because they lacked experience with that equipment and with Virginia DEQ stormwater requirements.
Board members pressed Recurrent on timelines, commercial commitments and county benefits. Supervisor Dalton and others noted this would be a second county extension and asked whether another year would be sufficient; Recurrent said it would. Supervisor Bowman raised questions about decommissioning of older solar facilities and whether the county had received the revenue earlier siting agreements promised. Chair Tucker pressed the company on whether its investors or power purchasers could change after construction; Walker said the company seeks the best commercial terms and described investors as global, noting federal review mechanisms for “foreign entities of concern.”
At the end of the presentation and question period, Chair Tucker recommended delaying any formal SUP action for about 30 days to allow staff and legal review of the signing agreement and siting terms. County staff confirmed this was an informational presentation and asked Recurrent to return with a formal extension request and any revised contract language; Recurrent representatives said they would do so and, when asked, said they would not return for another extension if the board approves the requested one-year extension.
No formal vote on the SUP extension occurred at the Feb. 17 work session. The board instructed staff and the developer to prepare a formal agenda item and supporting materials for consideration after the requested 30-day review period.
Adam Peterson, permitting manager for Recurrent Energy, told the board the Firefly project covers roughly 3,000 acres in the Dan River district, of which about 1,300 acres would be fenced and the facility could produce up to 150 megawatts. Peterson said the project has executed a county-required site/signing agreement tied to a revised county ordinance and described milestone payments to the county: $2,250,000 at construction start and roughly $10,000,000 over a 35-year operating life (the company presented the combined total as $12,200,000).
Peterson and Jace (Jace) Walker, Recurrent’s director of development, said the company is at about 60% design and needs to reach a 90% civil design milestone to secure state stormwater permits and a county building permit. They emphasized that terrain-following tracker technology now available will reduce grading and stormwater impacts on the site’s rolling topography and that earlier engineering-procurement-construction (EPC) firms left the project because they lacked experience with that equipment and with Virginia DEQ stormwater requirements.
Board members pressed Recurrent on timelines, commercial commitments and county benefits. Supervisor Dalton and others noted this would be a second county extension and asked whether another year would be sufficient; Recurrent said it would. Supervisor Bowman raised questions about decommissioning of older solar facilities and whether the county had received the revenue earlier siting agreements promised. Chair Tucker pressed the company on whether its investors or power purchasers could change after construction; Walker said the company seeks the best commercial terms and described investors as global, noting federal review mechanisms for “foreign entities of concern.”
At the end of the presentation and question period, Chair Tucker recommended delaying any formal SUP action for about 30 days to allow staff and legal review of the signing agreement and siting terms. County staff confirmed this was an informational presentation and asked Recurrent to return with a formal extension request and any revised contract language; Recurrent representatives said they would do so and, when asked, said they would not return for another extension if the board approves the requested one-year extension.
No formal vote on the SUP extension occurred at the Feb. 17 work session. The board instructed staff and the developer to prepare a formal agenda item and supporting materials for consideration after the requested 30-day review period.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
