Richmond Solar Deal for Nearly 40 City Buildings Heads to Full Council Amid $28M Exit-Fee Fight

Oct 12, 2026, 4:30 PM ET

Richmond City Council’s Government Operations committee advanced a proposed solar partnership covering nearly 40 city-owned buildings but offered no recommendation, sending a fraught 25-year deal with Secure Solar to the full council for a Sept. 28 vote. WWBT reported that Councilmembers Sarah Abubaker and Kenya Gibson led the skepticism, focusing on exit costs, repair obligations, and whether older roofs can bear the panels.

The Office of Sustainability wants the city to host Secure Solar’s equipment under a long-term arrangement pitched as a way to cut municipal energy costs and advance climate goals. Secure Solar CEO Anthony Smith told the committee the city would not pay if the system produces no electricity, and he urged members to trust that the administration had already worked through risk questions with the chief administrative officer.

Abubaker’s concern was not hostility to green energy, she said, but the duration and asymmetry of the contract. “This is a 25-year contract,” she reminded colleagues, comparing the commitment to a marriage that will outlast many current officeholders and shape costs for the next generation. She put the early-termination fee in the first five years at about $28 million—an eye-watering number for a city still balancing school, public-safety, and housing pressures.

Smith attributed the high early-exit figure to tax-credit rules that finance the panels. That explanation may be technically accurate and still politically insufficient. Councilmembers asked for a full risk assessment before the Sept. 28 vote, a document that will need to address roof structural capacity, maintenance responsibility, insurance, default scenarios, and what happens if federal tax policy changes mid-stream.

Richmond’s solar debate sits inside a national pattern: cities chasing decarbonization through third-party-owned arrays on public roofs. The model can shift upfront capital off the city’s books, but it concentrates contractual complexity into clauses most residents never read. When exit fees approach eight figures, the “no upfront cost” pitch collides with the reality that flexibility itself has a price.

Gibson and Abubaker also pressed on repair costs and building readiness. A panel system that saves kilowatt-hours on paper becomes a liability if it voids roof warranties or requires structural reinforcement the capital budget did not plan. Facilities staff will have to inventory which of the nearly 40 buildings need upgrades before installation schedules lock in.

Politically, the committee’s decision to move the item without a recommendation is a signal. Members were unwilling to kill the proposal outright and unwilling to bless it. That puts the mayor’s administration and Secure Solar on notice that the full council expects sharper paper—not just assurances from the dais. Trust language from a vendor CEO rarely substitutes for an independent risk memo.

For ratepayers and taxpayers, the right questions are quantitative. What is the projected municipal electricity savings year by year? Who owns the renewable-energy credits? How are performance guarantees enforced? What is the net present value of the deal under high, medium, and low production scenarios? And how does the $28 million early-exit cliff decline over time?

Environmental advocates will argue that delaying solar on city buildings undercuts Richmond’s climate commitments and leaves money on the table while federal incentives still exist. Fiscal hawks will answer that a bad 25-year contract is worse than a slower procurement. Both can be true: the city can want more solar and still reject a particular risk allocation.

Sept. 28 will not end the story even if the council approves the deal. Implementation will surface roof-by-roof surprises, neighborhood questions about glare or aesthetics, and workforce issues around who installs and maintains the arrays. If the council pauses or renegotiates, expect a revised term sheet that softens early-exit exposure or phases buildings in tranches.

Either outcome matters beyond Richmond. Other Virginia cities watching Secure Solar-style offers will read the risk assessment and the roll-call vote as a template. For now, All Virginia News readers should mark the date: a no-recommendation advance, a contested $28 million exit fee, nearly 40 buildings, and a full council decision that will show whether Richmond prioritizes speed to solar or contractual caution—or finds a rewrite that delivers both.

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,

Richmond City Ali Faruk Andrew Breton Anne Holton Budget Cheryl Burke Cynthia Newbille Debate Electricity Ellen Robertson Emmett Jafari Energy Housing Independent Insurance Katherine Jordan Kathryn Ricard Kenya Gibson Marriage Matthew Percival Nicole Jones Policy Reva Trammell Richmond Richmond City Council Richmond School Board Sarah Abubaker School Shavonda Fernandez Stephanie Lynch Stephanie Rizzi Virginia Wesley Hedgepeth