---

Patrick County, VA — Two members of the Patrick County Planning Commission recently made a six-hour round trip to present at a public hearing during the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors March 11th meeting. The hearing focused on the approval of a large utility-scale solar installation, a topic that has become increasingly contentious in Patrick County.

At the hearing, Ed Pool delivered a nearly identical version of a speech he had given to the Patrick County Board of Supervisors on January 13, 2025, while Vance Agee seemed to confirm that his appointment to the commission was specifically tied to the solar issue. Their presentations appeared to offer little new insight into the debate over solar development.

The appointments of Pool and Agee have become a source of controversy in Patrick County. Both were installed along partisan (issue) lines, with the support of anti-solar Board of Supervisors members Jonathan Wood, Clayton Kendrick, and Andrew Overby. Critics argue that their appointments represent an intentional effort to “pad” the commission with individuals opposed to solar development, effectively turning the planning commission into a body of partisan operatives rather than impartial decision-makers.

The trip to Prince Edward County did not appear to enhance their understanding of the solar issue. During the subsequent Patrick County Planning Commission meeting on March 18, 2025, discussions about the countys comprehensive plan—particularly regarding solar development—revealed significant confusion among members. Pool, Agee, and others, including Board of Supervisors liaison Andrew Overby and his district appointee Michael Tatum, were repeatedly corrected by a representative from The Berkeley Group, a consulting firm hired to guide the development of the comprehensive plan. The consultant clarified the scope of the commissions authority and pushed back against attempts to overreach their statutory responsibilities.

The situation underscores a broader issue regarding the dangers of intentionally stacking local boards and commissions with partisan appointees. When boards are filled with individuals chosen for their ideological alignment rather than their expertise or commitment to impartial governance, the decision-making process suffers. In Patrick County, the apparent focus on opposing solar development at all costs has led to confusion, misinformation, and inflated propaganda, further polarizing the community.

Local governance relies on trust, transparency, and a commitment to the public good. When boards and commissions are padded with partisan operatives, that trust erodes. Residents are left wondering whether decisions are being made in the best interest of the community or to advance a specific agenda. In the case of Patrick County, the solar issue has become a flashpoint for these concerns, but the implications extend far beyond renewable energy.

As Patrick County continues to grapple with its comprehensive plan and the role of solar development in its future, the actions of its planning commission members serve as a cautionary tale. The intentional politicization of local boards undermines their ability to function effectively and risks alienating the very communities they are meant to serve.

For now, the question remains: Will Patrick Countys leaders ever prioritize good governance over partisan issue politics?