Commissioners introduce renewable-energy siting ordinance as emergency; plan includes fee for solar on prime soils

Queen Anne's County Commissioners voted June 24 to introduce County Ordinance 25-10, the Renewable Energy Certainty Act, and to convey the draft to the Planning Commission as emergency legislation ahead of the state’s July 1 effective date for related state law.

Commissioner Jack Wilson (first name recorded as 'Jack' in transcript) moved to introduce the ordinance and have it adopted as emergency legislation; the board approved the motion to introduce and convey the ordinance to planning staff for review. The emergency move shortens the time before the county implements rules required by state law.

The ordinance aligns local code with the state’s recent legislation (referred to in the meeting as Senate Bill 931 and House Bill 1036) and adds specific provisions for siting of solar energy generating systems, community solar systems and energy storage devices. Planning staff noted the ordinance incorporates many siting provisions adopted by the state and adds local rules for community solar and energy storage where the county previously had none.

A new feature in the proposed county ordinance is a compensatory preservation contribution: a per-acre financial payment the county would require when a solar facility or storage device is built on identified Class 1 soils. Under the draft, the contribution would be based on 50% of the fair-market-value appraisals used in the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) annual settlement process; county staff said the figure would be taken from the previous year's posted MALPF appraisal values. County staff gave the example that the 2024 rate would have been $41.64 per acre as a calculation benchmark.

County staff and commissioners discussed several technical implementation issues: - The ordinance would apply a 5% cap (the priority preservation area or PPA cap set by the state law) tied to the county’s mapped priority preservation acreage; staff said Queen Anne’s County’s remaining PPA (after removing preserved acreage) is roughly 116,000 acres, meaning 5% would translate into roughly 5,800 acres available under the cap. Staff noted the county’s preserved acres (about 83,684) are already removed from the PPA calculation. - Commissioners debated whether the PPA calculation should exclude already preserved lands or in-pipeline projects; planning staff said the draft and statutory language indicate preserved lands are excluded from the PPA total and that pipeline projects’ treatment is a legal detail that could be argued. - Decommissioning and bond requirements for solar were discussed; commissioners asked if required bonds are sufficient to cover removal if a developer fails to decommission a site. Staff explained decommissioning requirements are set by the Public Service Commission for some systems and that the ordinance includes whatever bond provisions the state requires.

Commissioner Jack Wilson described the compensatory preservation contribution as an attempt to “recoup some money for them taking our Class 1 soils,” and he said the county will focus the fee on Class 1 soils because such a requirement is likely to be more defensible if challenged. Commissioner discussion acknowledged the ordinance could be legally contested and that the county was trying to protect priority preservation areas while aligning with state requirements.

Why it matters: The ordinance implements state law locally and creates a local funding mechanism tied to farmland-preservation appraisals to offset permanent loss of prime agricultural soils to utility-scale solar.

What’s next: The board adopted the emergency-introduction motion and conveyed 25-10 to the Planning Commission; staff will return a revised ordinance and schedule a public hearing and vote at a later meeting. Commissioners noted emergency adoption at final vote will require four of five votes when the ordinance returns for adoption.

Ending note: County staff said the ordinance is meant to be workable with state law changes; commissioners emphasized the measure’s potential to raise funds for farmland preservation but acknowledged legal and implementation questions remain.