On September 19th, Conduit Street published a Policy Deep Dive which outlined the contours of negotiations seeking a possible compromise solar bill among counties, industry,
the administration, and environmental groups. Since that time stakeholders have reconvened to discuss feedback and to pursue consensus on one of Maryland’s most vexing challenges.
In this week’s Policy Deep Dive, we look at the broader landscape driving this conversation and MACo’s anticipated involvement in solar issues generally during the 2025 legislative session.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
- Negotiations among the stakeholders are ongoing. Counties will continue receiving regular updates as developments arise.
Critical Context
Current State Policy
Preemption Above 2MW – In 2019 case, Board of County Commissioners of Washington County v. Perennial Solar, LLC, the Maryland Court of Appeals (now the Supreme Court of Maryland) preempted counties’ ability to control the siting of solar energy projects above 2MW, granting the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) siting and approval authority through the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) process.
A 2021 ruling against Frederick County reinforced that county governments have very little recourse to protect their land and communities from solar development above 2MW.
Effectively these two court decisions have removed local control related to solar siting and limited influence over the solar siting process.
Competing State Priorities
Clean Energy – Maryland has set increasingly ambitious renewable energy goals. The Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022 mandates that the state generate 14.5% of its energy from solar by 2030. In 2023, Governor Wes Moore further committed Maryland to achieving 100% clean energy by 2035 through an executive order. Energy transmission over long distances faces large efficiency losses, so geographically close locations for clean energy will be at an increasingly premium demand in years ahead – Maryland is unlikely to be able to “import” its way to reach its own goals.
According to a September presentation from the multi-state energy authority PJM Interconnection, since 2018 Maryland has decommissioned 6,000 MW of power compared to adding only 1,600 MW. Maryland has historically been a net importer of energy, currently purchasing on average 40% of its energy needs from sites/facilities in other states. With the rise of data centers (within Maryland but also elsewhere), electric vehicles, full building electrification, and aggressive climate policies, the state’s electricity demand is expected to increase significantly over the next several decades.
Conservation – Since the middle of the 20th century, state policy has rewarded counties for prioritizing conservation, even tying some state funding to preserved land. In 2023, the Maryland the Beautiful Act reaffirmed this commitment to conservation, aiming to conserve 30% of the state by 2030 and 40% by 2040. However, these same lands are highly profitable for solar development, and preemption prevents counties from prioritizing conservation in any area targeted by a solar developer.
Housing – The 2024 legislative session was dubbed “The Session of Housing,” with Governor Wes Moore introducing an affordable housing package and MACo supporting numerous pro-affordable housing bills (covering both land use & broad housing development). Both the Governor and the General Assembly emphasized that affordable housing should be the top priority for localities, going so far as to infringe on community-driven decision-making by implementing a state density bonus. Maryland has a housing shortage of approximately 98,000 units, and low housing stock contributes to our affordable housing crisis. However, preemption prevents counties from prioritizing affordable housing in any area targeted by a solar developer.
Confusion & Frustration
The status quo sets the state on a collision course across several competing priorities while limiting county tools and creating a corporate-favored “winner take all” dynamic.
Counties have been left with little authority to enforce local policies or state priorities, and unclear communication from state leaders worsens the situation. Counties seek input in policymaking, but state feedback is limited, and local policies are often overturned. Solar projects still require local approval, leaving counties navigating frustrated constituents, a state bureaucracy that preempts decisions but avoids clear communication, and a multitude of competing state priorities. Despite Annapolis’s stance on preemption, the lack of clear rules creates confusion and conflict.
Where We Are Today
Political Landscape – The 2025 legislative session may be shaping up to be “The Session of Energy.” Following the failed deal of 2024, a series of unfortunate events have shaped the conversation in Annapolis.
First, the PJM Interconnection’s summer capacity auction (a mechanism which informs our utility bills) increased roughly 800% above normal, and estimates indicate an additional roughly 150% increase will occur at the upcoming winter auction. For Maryland ratepayers, this almost certainly means utility bills (that embed these capacity costs) will significantly increase in 2025.
Second, the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project has stirred widespread ire. The project stretches across Baltimore, Carroll, and Frederick Counties and will deliver energy generated in Pennsylvania to the ever-growing data center industry in Northern Virginia. Any benefit to Maryland is expected to be minimal, if at all, and project developers have openly emphasized their anticipated use of eminent domain, stirring understandable community concerns.
Third, projections indicate that Maryland is already behind in meeting the state’s ambitious renewable energy and climate goals. For Maryland to succeed in those pursuits, the General Assembly and Governor will need to take aggressive action and possibly prioritize certain goals over others.
Fourth, as Maryland and her neighbors welcome the data center industry and emphasize an increasingly electric future, over-the-wires energy demand will likely skyrocket. Increasingly, some circles are discussing capacity and transmission strategies to avoid brownouts and blackouts as this eventuality becomes a present, not merely potential, issue.
Fifth, leadership within the General Assembly has made it clear of their intent to promote Maryland’s renewable energy future. The 2024 legislative session saw several aggressive pieces of legislation introduced that will almost certainly return, along with several more rumored to be in development.
Sixth, constantly bubbling in the background is the competition among goals mentioned previously. Stakeholders remain fighting over every case, eventually occupying valuable farmland, dragging out the approval process, delaying some projects from coming online, and infuriating all parties.
County Concerns
Loss of Prime and Productive Soils – The biggest concern for all jurisdictions is the loss of the state’s prime and productive soils. Soil is a finite resource, and once it is stripped of certain properties, it is incredibly difficult to restore. For jurisdictions with agriculture as the primary industry and those worried about climate change, preservation of soil for agricultural use is a serious concern.
Community Character – While the question of “where” projects can be sited was largely answered with the preemption of local authority, the question of “how” they are sited remains open. Constituents flag concerns that the broader “look, smell, and feel” of their communities will be negatively affected by many of these projects, and a lack of concern for neighbors by previous developers has proven these fears true. Constituents understandably want guardrails to prevent projects from interrupting otherwise natural or agricultural landscapes.
Community Concerns/Inconsistency with All Other Land Use Law – The broad and sweeping state preemption of county authority has largely left counties toothless in addressing most constituent concerns related to solar projects. The enormous carve-out and lack of basic rules leave many county leaders questioning how they can respond. This considerable inconsistency with how land use has been traditionally governed has not only left a bad taste in the mouth of many, but also an environment with little recourse other than costly and frustrating litigation.
Trying to Drive Consensus
The multiple stakeholder group meeting through this interim reconvened last week to assess feedback from the administration, counties, industry, and the environmental community. While members had set an ambitious deadline of trying to have a final product by the end of October, several significant points remain under active negotiation. From a county perspective, the past several years have seen both an erosion of local authority and increased pressures from the State. Above all, balanced objectives and local autonomy remain key priorities for county leaders.
Helpful Elements for Counties in Draft
Solar Energy Generating System Siting Standards (“Livability Standards”) – Since 2019, Maryland counties have been almost entirely preempted on decisions related to the siting of solar projects above 2MW. This preemption has led to years of confusion and frustration both for constituents and county leaders. For the first time since 2019, legislation is being debated that would, within guardrails, restore local authority related to livability factors that constitutes care most about. In exchange for the partial restoration of authority above 2MW, county authority would be partially limited between 1MW-2MW. Effectively, the siting standards would grant counties a stronger ability to enforce livability requirements on larger projects and raise the bar for which the state can preempt those decisions. Highlights of restored authority include: setbacks, landscape buffers, grading, height restrictions, and decommissioning.
Compensatory Preservation Contribution (CPC) – As noted extensively above, Maryland has enacted a set of increasingly ambitious environmental and energy-related goals. These goals have grown in competition, leaving constituents and counties caught in the middle. The CPC is a novel mechanism that realigns these goals to use solar development to drive land conservation. The CPC would set a per-acre contribution in areas set to be preserved but are yet to have an easement. This contribution would be payable to the counties and must be used for agricultural preservation, conservation, historic preservation, or related support programming. While the contribution rate of $3500 or $5000 per acre may not be at the market rate for an easement in some jurisdictions, the annual five percent escalator will ensure future growth will meet the market rate in future years.
MACo Adopts Advancing Solar Siting With a Balanced Approach as a 2025 Legislative Initiative
On October 16th, MACo’s Legislative Committee adopted Advancing Solar Siting With a Balanced Approach as one of the association’s top five initiatives for the 2025 legislative session,
Maryland, along with the broader region, faces a daunting energy crisis. Recent capacity auctions indicate a spike in utility rates, and state data shows energy demand far outpacing in-state production, making Maryland ratepayers even more susceptible to peak demand price hikes.
In-state clean energy is undoubtedly part of the best path forward. As policymakers in Annapolis confront this challenge, counties favor a broad-based approach that balances multiple climate and environmental objectives without sacrificing communities’ ability to influence their character.
Similar to 2024’s initiative, Advancing Comprehensive Housing Solutions, MACo’s 2025 solar initiative signals to the General Assembly that counties remain committed to being productive stakeholders on issues that impact our mutual constituents. The adoption of this initiative does not constitute support for any specific piece of legislation but signals MACo’s heavy involvement in this year’s energy conversation, arguing on behalf of community input and local deference in this complex, ongoing issue.
This article is part of MACo’s Policy Deep Dive series, where expert policy analysts explore and explain the top county policy issues of the day. A new article is added each week – read all of MACo’s Policy Deep Dives.
