News & Insights
Virginia Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia & Appalachian Laborers’ District Council Challenge to Sycamore Cross Solar Project
The Supreme Court of Virginia issued an opinion in which it addresses an appeal by the West Virginia & Appalachian Laborers’ District Council challenging the State Corporation Commission’s approval of certificates of public convenience and necessity for Sycamore Cross Solar LLC’s proposed 240-megawatt solar facility.
West Virginia & Appalachian Laborers’ District Council v. State Corporation Commission, Record No. 240315 (Va. Mar. 27, 2025)
Sycamore Cross Solar LLC applied for certificates of public convenience and necessity (CPCNs) to construct and operate a 240-megawatt solar facility in Isle of Wight and Surrey Counties. An economic impact analysis (Mangum Report) estimated that the project would create 197 full-time jobs during construction and 7 full-time jobs during operation. Sycamore committed to making “reasonable efforts” to hire local employees but declined to making binding commitments regarding local hiring percentages.
The West Virginia & Appalachian Laborers’ District Council (WVALDC), which represents thousands of workers, supported the project conditioned on Sycamore hiring a majority local workforce. A Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the application without mandating local hiring requirements but suggested notification requirements to WVALDC when hiring began. The SCC approved the CPCNs, adopting most of the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations but declined to impose any hiring-related conditions.
WVALDC appealed the SCC’s decision on two bases: (1) that the SCC failed to comply with the Enactment Clause 7 of the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), which requires the SCC to “consider whether and how” renewable energy facilities benefit certain enumerated groups, and (2) that the SCC abused its discretion by declining to impose a local hiring condition.
The Supreme Court of Virginia disagreed with the WVALDC on both points. First, it found that the SCC had properly complied with the VCEA by “considering” the enumerated groups. The SCC expressly stated that it had considered the relevant factors imposed by the VCEA, and the Act contains no requirement that the SCC make specific findings as to each group. Second, it found that the SCC had not abused its discretion by declining to impose hiring-related conditions. Neither the VCEA nor any other law mandates the use of local workers or requires the SCC to adopt local hiring plans. The SCC also provided a rationale for its decision, specifically Sycamore’s commitment to making reasonable efforts to hire local workers and the practical difficulties of imposing such a requirement a year before hiring would actually begin.