Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carroll County deadlocks on amendments to solar energy code; public raises decommissioning and fire concerns
Summary
A proposed update to Chapter 158 addressing solar energy generating systems and energy storage devices failed to pass after a 2–2 vote; public commenters urged stronger decommissioning bonds, shorter abandonment timelines and ongoing fire updates.
Carroll County commissioners were unable to adopt proposed amendments to Chapter 158, the county’s solar energy code, after a tied 2–2 vote on Oct. 9. The draft changes would have incorporated state requirements for utility‑scale solar and added rules for energy storage systems.
County staff said the changes aim to align local code with the state’s Renewable Energy Certainty Act and to add a use category for energy storage devices, which state law requires jurisdictions to allow. Planning staff emphasized that they had retained locally appropriate standards where state law did not preempt them.
During the public hearing, Eldersburg resident Sally Delaface asked the board to strengthen decommissioning protections, shorten the county’s abandonment timeline and require periodic updates to fire department plans. Delaface cited external reports about potential remediation costs for large utility sites and urged the county to ensure bonding amounts and inflation escalators would cover realistic removal and disposal costs.
Staff responded that the state code sets a bonding floor at 125 percent of estimated decommissioning costs and that the county’s draft treats a facility inactive for 12 months as abandoned. Staff said bonds may be reviewed periodically (every five years) to account for changing costs and that significant changes to a facility would trigger site amendment reviews involving fire and EMS.
Several commissioners said they wanted more time to study the draft, to separate provisions that merely restated state law from provisions where the county could add local requirements, and to consider additional safeguards (including stronger county review of decommissioning cost estimates and periodic reassessments). A motion to adopt the package failed for lack of a second; staff will return with revisions as directed by the board or if a commissioner brings the item back for a future vote.
