Richmond’s $28 Million Solar Exit Fee Is the Contract Test City Council Cannot Shrug Off

Richmond’s Secure Solar proposal for nearly 40 city buildings should not be waved through on climate branding alone. Council’s Government Operations committee advanced the 25-year deal with no recommendation after Councilmembers Sarah Abubaker and Kenya Gibson highlighted a roughly $28 million early-termination fee, repair unknowns, and roof-load risks. The full council votes Sept. 28. That is the accountability deadline.

CEO Anthony Smith’s assurance that the city pays nothing if the system produces no electricity addresses one failure mode and ignores another: exit flexibility. A contract that costs eight figures to unwind in the first five years transfers risk onto future councils and future taxpayers. Tax-credit mechanics may explain the fee; they do not obligate Richmond to accept it.

Abubaker’s marriage metaphor was apt. Twenty-five years outlasts most political careers. Children of current residents will still be paying—or benefiting—when today’s members are gone. That duration demands an independent risk assessment, not vendor trust exercises at the dais.

Questions the CAO and sustainability office must answer in writing before Sept. 28: net present value under low production; who carries roof reinforcement costs; warranty interactions; insurance; RECs ownership; default remedies; and a year-by-year schedule showing when the exit fee declines. If those answers are oral only, council should pause.

Green procurement done badly becomes a gift to opponents of climate policy. Fiscal conservatives will correctly say that decarbonization cannot mean blank-check contracting. Environmental advocates should join them in demanding cleaner paper rather than attacking scrutiny as anti-solar. The enemy of good solar policy is a bad contract, not a careful councilmember.

Phasing is an available compromise: pilot a subset of buildings with stout roofs, publish performance data, then expand. A big-bang 40-building commitment maximizes headline watts and maximizes surprise change orders.

Workforce and maintenance clauses deserve the same sunlight. Who installs? Who climbs roofs after hail? Are there responsible-contractor standards? City residents footing liability should know.

Compare the political energy around this deal with quieter facilities backlogs. If Richmond can contemplate a 25-year energy marriage, it can also publish a roof-condition inventory for the same buildings. Pairing those documents is basic stewardship.

Sept. 28 is binary only if council lets it be. Amend, escrow, phase, or reject. Advancing from committee without recommendation already signaled discomfort. The full council should not confuse momentum with merit.

Red Virginia News will judge the vote by whether members can explain the $28 million cliff in plain English at the microphone. Climate goals matter. So do exit ramps. Richmond can pursue both—or demonstrate how cities get locked into generation-scale promises on municipal rooftops without reading the termination schedule.

Council should require Secure Solar and the administration to model termination costs at years 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 under optimistic and pessimistic production. A single $28 million figure without a decay schedule is how cities get locked in by fear.

Roof engineers, not marketing decks, should sign statements for each candidate building. Publish which roofs need reinforcement and who pays. If half the portfolio needs capital work, the “no upfront cost” claim collapses.

Compare this contract to peer cities. Have Norfolk, Virginia Beach, or Arlington signed similar third-party rooftop deals? What exit fees did they accept? Borrow clauses that worked; reject vanity firsts.

Public comment should include school and public-safety advocates who compete for the same risk tolerance. A city willing to absorb a $28 million cliff for solar should explain why it cannot bond comparable sums for leaking schools—or admit the risk is mispriced.

If the Sept. 28 vote fails or is delayed, demand a reissued RFP with capped early-exit exposure and mandatory phase gates. Competition disciplines vendors faster than committee lectures.

Approval without those reforms would tell every contractor that Richmond blinks when climate branding fills the chamber. Rejection without a path to better solar would tell every advocate that scrutiny equals sabotage. The grown-up lane is conditional yes or structured renegotiation—documented, vote by vote, on the record.

Watch the roll call and the amendments. Accountability is not a vibe; it is whether members can defend the termination schedule to a homeowner who still waits for basic street repairs.

Email the Richmond City Council:
Andrew Breton, andrew.breton@rva.gov,
Katherine Jordan, katherine.jordan@rva.gov,
Kenya Gibson, kenya.gibson@rva.gov,
Sarah Abubaker, sarah.abubaker@rva.gov,
Stephanie Lynch, stephanie.lynch@rva.gov,
Ellen Robertson, ellen.robertson@rva.gov,
Cynthia Newbille, cynthia.newbille@rva.gov,
Reva Trammell, reva.trammell@rva.gov,
Nicole Jones, nicole.jones@rva.gov,

Email the Richmond School Board:
Matthew Percival, mpercival@rvaschools.net,
Kathryn Ricard, kricard@rvaschools.net,
Ali Faruk, afaruk@rvaschools.net,
Wesley Hedgepeth, whedgepeth@rvaschools.net,
Stephanie Rizzi, srizzi@rvaschools.net,
Anne Holton, aholton@rvaschools.net,
Cheryl Burke, cburke2@rvaschools.net,
Emmett Jafari, ejafari@rvaschools.net,
Shavonda Fernandez, sdixon@rvaschools.net,