Commissioners workshop solar ordinance and NFPA 855 for energy storage; county delays storage provisions pending state guidance

Caroline County held a workshop Sept. 23 to review a proposed local solar ordinance, a proposed Agricultural Land Preservation Fund (to receive compensatory contributions when solar or energy‑storage projects are sited on prime farmland), and the applicability of NFPA 855 (the National Fire Protection Association standard for energy‑storage systems).

Crystal Dads, director of planning and codes, summarized the draft zoning language: the county proposes to regulate utility-scale solar and energy-storage systems differently by size — less than 1 megawatt (local zoning authority retained) and 1 megawatt or greater (state siting standards and Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity frameworks interact). Dads said the draft would require a certificate of compliance with NFPA 855 “issued by the authority having jurisdiction” for energy‑storage systems and would require developers to contribute to an agricultural land‑preservation fund when projects affect prime farmland. The draft also included screening and setback requirements tied to the state siting standards.

Adam Smith of First State Inspection, invited to speak about NFPA 855, briefed the board on the code’s state and national status, and on common practice for permitting and plan review. Smith said NFPA 855 (editions adopted in recent years, with a 2026 edition forthcoming) includes hazard analyses and permitting submittal requirements and references NFPA 13 (sprinkler systems) but does not prescribe a single, definitive suppression solution for all battery systems. He and commissioners discussed published guidance and case studies showing that some self‑contained, containerized battery systems can be damaged by sprinklers and that alternate mitigation and monitoring approaches (gas detection, remote enunciators, misting, compartmentalization, and fire‑department remote monitoring) are being considered in different jurisdictions.

Commissioners expressed concern that local fire departments lack specialized equipment and remote monitoring to safely fight large battery incidents and that NFPA 855 leaves important discretion to the “authority having jurisdiction” (the state fire marshal or local fire authority). Several commissioners said they favored keeping the county’s existing moratorium on new energy‑storage approvals until the state provides clearer regulatory or technical guidance.

Key operational decisions recorded in the workshop included: - The board asked staff to remove the energy‑storage provisions from the current ordinance package and hold them for a separate bill while proceeding with solar siting language and the Agricultural Land Preservation Fund; the county will reintroduce or amend legislation at a later date after additional work on NFPA 855 implementation and fire‑department needs. - Commissioners directed staff to require a certificate of compliance with NFPA 855 from the Maryland State Fire Marshal’s Office (as the “authority having jurisdiction”) before local approvals for energy‑storage systems would be granted. - Staff and commissioners discussed an appraisal process for the preservation contribution — county‑approved appraisers, two appraisals with an average or median used for valuation, and options to coordinate with the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) or local land trusts. Commissioners asked staff to craft draft language requiring applicant‑paid appraisals reviewed/approved by the county; the board discussed capping contributions (MALPF’s cap of 75% of fair market value was noted) and whether to use land‑only valuation. - Commissioners asked staff to explore requiring developers to secure liability insurance, to document air‑monitoring and evacuation plans, and to obtain written confirmation from the nearest volunteer fire companies that required training and equipment will be provided at the developer’s expense before permits are issued. The board also directed staff to research training needs and estimated costs for local fire companies.

Why it matters: County officials said they will continue to regulate solar siting while seeking an operational, defensible approach for energy‑storage safety. Battery energy storage poses evolving technical and emergency‑response questions; commissioners favored deferring formal local approval of storage facilities until the state fire marshal’s office and NFPA guidance provide more definitive direction and until county fire companies can identify training and equipment needs.

Next steps: Planning staff will rework the solar ordinance language for reintroduction, remove energy‑storage provisions from the immediate package, and prepare a draft appraisal and contribution process for the preservation fund. Staff will also survey local fire departments on equipment/training needs and seek input from the Maryland State Fire Marshal’s Office about NFPA 855 implementation and certification.