Duplin County reviews solar ordinance, staff flags decommissioning and bond questions

Duplin County Manager Brian Miller told the Duplin County Board of Commissioners on May 19 that the county's solar ordinance requires new site plans for new facilities or when an existing facility increases its footprint by more than 10 percent, and described decommissioning rules and options for bond requirements, but the board took no formal action.

Miller said the county's ordinance sets setbacks, fencing and buffer requirements, requires underground power lines between panels and inverters where applicable, and mandates a decommissioning plan that defines removal conditions such as lease expiration or 12 months of inactivity.

The briefing matters because commissioners said they are concerned the county could face costs if a solar operator abandons a site; Miller recommended adding a bond requirement for future facilities so the county would not shoulder decommissioning costs if a developer cannot or will not restore a site.

Miller summarized the ordinance's technical requirements, saying: "new solar facilities or modifications increasing their existing footprint by more than 10% will require a new site plan, approval by our planning board and will have to conform to our current regulations." He listed specific provisions: a 60-foot setback from public road rights-of-way, 300 feet from residences or churches (or 50 feet from the property line if no nearby structures), a 25-foot landscape buffer of evergreen trees or shrubs that must reach roughly 7 feet within three years, and a minimum six-foot security fence. He also said operators must post an informational sign at site entrances and that the county requires technical plans, property agreements and three copies of a site plan for planning-board review.

On decommissioning, Miller described the county's rule that 12 months of inactivity constitutes abandonment; the responsible party must remove panels, structures, fencing, roads and foundations within 365 days of notice. "If noncompliant, the county has the right to remove the facility, sell the materials, and take legal action to recoup costs," he said.

Miller told the board his review did not find an existing requirement for a financial surety tied to decommissioning and said a bond could be structured as cash, a surety bond or an irrevocable letter of credit held in escrow. He noted examples used elsewhere: "Some are as small as $10,000 per acre, and some are based on the percentage of assessed value or the estimated decommissioning cost." He also reported a quick search that produced a $3,000-per-acre decommissioning figure as one example of a lower estimate.

Miller warned that the county's ability to require bonds for already-permitted facilities is limited by permit-choice and vested-rights principles: developers who have received permits generally may choose to proceed under the ordinance that applied when their permit was issued. "I don't think we can do that," he said in response to a question about whether the county could retroactively require bonds for existing permits; he added that new or expanded footprints above the percentage threshold would need to comply with new rules.

Commissioners discussed whether to pursue an amendment to the county's ordinance. Miller offered to forward his materials to the planning department for review and bring proposed changes back to the board for public hearings and ordinance amendment if the board wishes. No motion or formal vote on an ordinance change occurred at the May 19 meeting.

Background: Miller said he placed a booklet on planning and zoning for solar in North Carolina from the UNC School of Government on commissioners' desks for further reading and compared Duplin County provisions to other counties, noting some counties have smaller or larger setbacks and some jurisdictions require bonds.

The county manager told commissioners he would return with draft language if the board directs staff to pursue a bond requirement or other ordinance changes; several commissioners expressed informal support for further study but did not direct immediate action.