[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6620205,"mediaKeyId","2813075-31b7c5dd4ab8cd68b989bb80f331e38c","parentId",2813075,"title","Committee reviews Senate Bill 931 after extended debate on solar siting, 5% cap for preservation areas","audioSeconds",5260,"startMs",1255000,"endMs",6515000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2813075-31b7c5dd4ab8cd68b989bb80f331e38c&start=1255&end=6515","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2813075-31b7c5dd4ab8cd68b989bb80f331e38c/thumbnail_1255000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6620205/Maryland/Committee-reviews-Senate-Bill-931-after-extended-debate-on-solar-siting-5-cap-for-preservation-areas","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620205-f1f328e3106f8ca6685046c39bb3f64b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146064&Signature=T-PufXXjie8zEMzHugz~p2p98TvkysdCQmIFkkKvmAsC8ISFpkqC5w1cjL~3I~Zyj0ClSKPlYhWljnGV0HEjgBENgIvvvjB7J3PyWyxk86pec7ZcJOvE4TF9gqV2rQSRrJN0CGcC0ndJEde-fnyTPn81KRL6lm0ap9NdHkcU2AzYCzUfGehZdydZC0j0ndSZmt6F4KWyxPNCCy7ytrPHO9DfpUCfjAcs5gxILoCLZp8N1V5Qhlz~nAXK7~9l9YPdJ7OQnDtr-fJMxBKWAUOF-L2-aEyC75e34lXISs6jK~ahKUjl0hcmRqcRAcylGbGyjIik9mo8RPZxucir~eOgJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Education, Energy and Environment","date","2025-03-28T20:53:16.827Z","article","The Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee heard a lengthy presentation and debate on Senate Bill 931, the Public Utilities—Renewable Generation Siting measure, during a session in which staff walked members through a reprint of the bill and numerous proposed amendments.

The committee chair opened the discussion by framing SB 931 as the third of a three-bill energy package and asked staff to walk members through revised language the bill now contains. Devin, a committee staff presenter, led the committee through the reprint and described the bill’s major provisions: statewide siting standards for utility-scale solar and front‑of‑meter energy storage, local and commission permitting roles, landscaping and visual‑screening requirements, decommissioning and landscaping bonds, an acreage cap for solar in statutory “priority preservation areas,” an agrivoltaics carve‑out, and changes to community solar and residential rooftop rules.

Why it matters: committee members and stakeholders told the committee the state must expand in‑state generation to improve resource adequacy and reduce dependence on out‑of‑state electricity, but they also pressed for protections for farmland, local zoning, environmental permits and community voice. The bill attempts to balance those aims by creating uniform statewide siting standards while preserving multiple permitting and environmental review steps.

Major technical and process points

- CPCN threshold and local verification: For solar generating stations with capacity greater than 2 megawatts, SB 931 continues to require a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) and approval by the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC). For stations of 2 megawatts or less, the bill assigns verification of siting requirements to the local jurisdiction.

- Site and public‑notice procedures: The bill requires developers to submit documentation showing compliance with siting rules, and when a proposed site is in an area the bill characterizes as “overburdened” or “underserved,” the applicant must hold additional community meetings (two meetings located within 10 miles of the proposed location) and collect community feedback as part of the record the approving body (PSC or local jurisdiction) will consider.

- Buffers, fencing and visual screening: SB 931 includes detailed siting standards introduced as amendments during drafting. Among provisions discussed are a 50‑foot setback between the solar array and the nearest wall of a residential dwelling (unless an exception applies), a 100‑foot setback from property lines (excluding interior lines that bisect a project area), limits on fencing type and height (chain‑link with vinyl slats or non‑barbed interior fencing; barbed wire only around certain critical infrastructure), and vegetative buffers with a specified design (multi‑layer, native species, 4‑foot minimum planting height and designed to achieve screening within five years). The bill calls for a maintenance agreement requiring a 90% survival threshold for screening plantings for the life of the facility.

- Landscaping bond and enforcement: The bill requires owners to post a landscaping bond for the first five years of the vegetative buffer’s life, with partial release conditioned on inspections verifying the 90% survival threshold; a remainder of the bond is held for an additional two years and released after a follow‑up inspection.

- Decommissioning and surety: Owners must execute a decommissioning agreement and post a surety bond with the PSC equal to a percentage (described in the bill) of estimated future decommissioning costs (the reprint sets the cap at 25% of estimated future cost less salvage value). The bill requires periodic “true‑ups” of the surety every five years.

- Height and use restrictions: The reprint sets a 15‑foot average maximum height for arrays and accessory structures and states that ground‑mounted projects above certain sizes may not be sited in mapped growth areas, medium‑ or high‑density residential areas, or mixed‑use areas with a residential component.

- Agrivoltaics and exemptions: The bill (as reprinted and as amended in committee discussion) carves out agrivoltaics (integrated agricultural uses under or near panels) from several siting requirements, and committee members discussed a separate amendment to clarify those exemptions and definitions.

- Priority preservation area cap: One of the most discussed provisions establishes a statewide limit on the total acreage of solar projects that may be approved within areas statutorily defined as priority preservation areas (agricultural preservation polygons designated by the Department of Agriculture and captured in state law). The reprint sets that limit at 5% of the total acreage of each county’s designated priority preservation area. Committee discussion included staff‑provided acreage calculations: the committee was shown a total statewide figure for priority preservation area acreage of 2,051,092 acres; five percent of that total equals 102,555 acres. Committee members observed that meeting near‑term solar goals would require far less acreage (committee members quoted targets in the 15,000–30,000 acre range), and some members said a 5% cap would allow substantially more farmland conversion than advocates expect. Questions from members focused on how the 5% would be measured (project footprint), how counties or individual parcels would be counted, and whether the cap would meaningfully protect preserved farmland.

- Energy storage provisions: For front‑of‑meter energy storage devices the bill requires PSC approval and establishes notification requirements for counties and municipal governments and state legislators within one mile of a proposed site. The PSC is directed to adopt regulations governing siting and safety requirements for storage; the bill also includes a 25‑foot maximum vegetative buffer for storage facilities and similar landscaping and fencing provisions.

- Community solar automatic enrollment and low‑ and moderate‑income (LMI) prioritization: SB 931 adds an automatic‑enrollment model for local‑government–led community solar projects in which the local government or its designee acts as subscription coordinator. The PSC is required to establish procedures for automatic enrollment projects and to oversee program standards. The reprint sets a minimum of 60% of automatic‑enrollment subscribers to be LMI customers before other subscribers may be included. Local governments must provide a 90‑day notice before first bill credits and must honor opt‑out requests.

- Residential rooftop consumer protections and licensing: The reprint requires sellers or lessors of residential rooftop solar systems to provide buyers or lessees a written 5‑year full warranty on installation and components, disclose expected weather‑adjusted production, and certify compliance with federal, state and local workmanship standards. The bill tasks the Maryland Department of Labor with establishing a special solar contractor license (expected to be administered through existing contractor licensing structures) and minimum qualifications for installers; a civil penalty provision (for violations of the residential section) is included in the reprint.

- Procurement & PSC study: The bill contains a noncodified PSC study provision requiring the PSC to study procurement models (for example, power purchase agreements and partnerships between electric companies and suppliers) that could add accredited megawatts to the state’s PJM‑accredited supply, and to report by Dec. 1, 2026 on possible models and rate impacts.

Concerns and points raised by committee members

- Farmland permanence: Several members noted that converting active farmland to solar is likely to be long‑term and that land may not be easily returned to agricultural production after solar use. A senator observed that remediation to return land to active farming would be difficult and unlikely in many cases.

- Implementation, permitting and enforcement: Members repeatedly asked how the bill interacts with existing state environmental and permitting statutes (stormwater, forest conservation, nutrient management, wetlands), which remain applicable; staff and stakeholder representatives confirmed existing state permitting and environmental review requirements are not displaced. Committee members asked the sponsor to identify how the PSC and state agencies would enforce the new vegetative and bond standards and whether uniform decommissioning standards should be provided.

- Local control and siting agreements: The reprint allows counties and project owners to enter a written siting agreement that may provide less stringent siting restrictions than the statewide ceiling; if such an agreement exists and is provided, the project is considered to meet statewide siting requirements. Members asked how adjoining neighbors will be included in those agreements and how counties would balance differing local preferences.

- Measurement of the 5% cap and data needs: Members and staff agreed that more data and mapping would be useful before finalizing the cap. One committee member urged the Maryland Energy Administration and other agencies to inventory state‑owned land (including brownfields, landfills, highway rights‑of‑way and rooftops) that could be prioritized for development, and members discussed an amendment to require such an inventory or database.

Stakeholder testimony and technical clarifications

- Dominic Butchko of the Maryland Association of Counties explained the reprint and told members several of the siting standards were intended as an upper ceiling that counties could tailor below; he said counties would likely implement standards differently depending on local character and capacity.

- Committee staff and stakeholder exchanges clarified that the new siting and vegetative standards largely reflect amendments proposed by county associations and agricultural stakeholders and that they establish new uniform state standards that, according to staff, do not currently exist in state law.

Committee action and next steps

- During the session, committee members offered several follow‑up requests: (1) a clearer crosswalk of how SB 931 interacts with existing state environmental permitting statutes (stormwater, nutrient management, forest conservation), (2) a mapping and acreage analysis of priority preservation areas and of state‑owned land suitable for solar, (3) model language and enforcement mechanisms for decommissioning agreements and landscaping bonds, and (4) clarified language for agrivoltaics and the treatment of agrivoltaic projects.

- Committee members indicated possible additional amendments and asked staff to return with clarifying data; the sponsor and staff agreed to return the bill to the committee with additional amendments and the requested information for further consideration.

Ending

The committee stopped further action on SB 931 pending additional information and potential amendments from staff and stakeholders. The session moved on to other items on the agenda after an extended question‑and‑answer period.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","EEE Committee Session, 3/28/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","The Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee heard a lengthy presentation and debate on Senate Bill 931, the Public Utilities—Renewable Generation Siting bill, covering statewide siting standards for solar and storage, buffer and landscaping requirements, a 5% cap on development in priority preservation areas, decommissioning bonds and other provisions.","taxTitle","Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15092,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6620201,"Votes at a glance: committee approves consent calendar and several bills; two items postponed",226,2000,228000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2813075-31b7c5dd4ab8cd68b989bb80f331e38c&start=2&end=228","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2813075-31b7c5dd4ab8cd68b989bb80f331e38c/thumbnail_2000.jpg","/articles/6620201/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-committee-approves-consent-calendar-and-several-bills-two-items-postponed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620201-eb9c965f8b87c7c664f62096116867a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146064&Signature=HSIHFj2Zzq28YLBXJ0BqKTJ~4az7U33CjBRYQ1SzcclDkqdsRMrd-V8qzFDGluMt3k86hFIDP~Rxc30OErlcA8ZAz2XAtY6cGvPlFg9UOgK9pJ9Qd-KZRRE902uYZFKE~ZlQRDrxX~mU2XjLs428eClJMVKXkdNGSs5sTJ3wpU7jm53Zk82GduADGHS0Cbk0F6A1a7tVnY1cNP3nrhg~Ncy5DdAKK4ClI4eRu7u~5kubAnuxEM5mBzluJ9mWJRCRUs8ia1c4UG~6wUQiXkOwtyHfBApDmcxzNGv8VWXPh6gHuzdxSWdWjgsm37QRmT6PJXxnGKhd274a-b-9H3ft3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee took a series of procedural and substantive votes on bills listed on voting lists 23 and 24 and considered discussion items later in the agenda.

What the committee did

- Consent calendar (Voting List 23): The committee approved the items on the consent calendar unanimously. Committee leadership moved favorable and a second was recorded; the consent calendar carried by voice/hand vote.

- House Bill 75 (cross‑file Senate Bill 262) — Election Law — Special Elections: The committee recorded a favorable report by a voice/hand vote; Senator Kagan moved favorable and Senator Augustine seconded. Committee tally: 11‑0 in favor. The bill as described makes changes to special election timing and mail administration procedures in state law.

- House Bill 197 (cross‑file Senate Bill 68) — Restorative Practices Schools and School Discipline: The committee recorded a favorable report. Committee motion was moved by leadership and seconded; recorded vote 8‑3 in favor. Senators Gallien, Carozza and Simon Ayre were recorded in the negative.

- House Bill 324 (cross‑file Senate Bill 293) — County Board Member Anti‑Bias Training Act: Committee recorded a favorable report; vote 8‑3 with the same three members voting no.

- House Bill 344 (cross‑file Senate Bill 315) — Maryland Environmental Service board membership: Committee discussion focused on House changes that would replace the State Treasurer with the Secretary of Planning and add one member of the House and one member of the Senate as non‑voting legislative representatives. Committee deferred action and opted to return to the bill at a later meeting for possible adjustments.

- House Bill 895 (cross‑file Senate Bill 279) — Employment and Insurance Equality for Service Members Act: Committee recorded a favorable report by unanimous vote; motion carried unanimously.

- House Bill 1193 (cross‑file Senate Bill 944) — Maryland Housing Data Transparency Act: Committee heard a detailed staff presentation on the House version that narrowed the bill to larger jurisdictions (counties with 150,000+ residents and Baltimore City) and changed monthly reporting to quarterly. Committee members requested additional information, including fiscal and operational impacts on the Department of Planning and local governments; committee deferred action to gather more information.

Procedure and attribution notes

- Where recorded votes were taken, the transcript identifies movers and seconders and the recorded tallies used above. Where a roll call was not completed, the transcript records voice/hand votes and the chair’s announcement of the outcome.

Ending

Committee members indicated they would return to postponed items (notably HB 344 and HB 1193) after staff gathered additional analysis and stakeholder input. The committee then proceeded to the final agenda item — the presentation and discussion of Senate Bill 931 — and concluded the meeting after that discussion.","During the session the Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee approved a consent calendar and voted on or considered multiple bills from voting lists 23 and 24. Several bills carried; two items were postponed for further information.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee reviews Senate Bill 931 after extended debate on solar siting, 5% cap for preservation areas

Votes at a glance: committee approves consent calendar and several bills; two items postponed