Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances solar siting bill after contentious debate over farmland carve‑outs and 5% threshold
Summary
House Bill 1036, setting statewide siting rules for solar and storage and enabling up to 5% of certain priority preservation land for solar without local approval, passed the Economic Matters Committee after prolonged debate about impacts on Eastern Shore agriculture and preserved lands.
The Economic Matters Committee advanced House Bill 1036, which establishes standardized siting requirements for solar energy generating stations and storage devices, creates a distributed‑generation CPCN path, and tasks the Maryland Department of Labor with creating a special solar contractor license. The bill, as amended and approved by the committee, also directs the Department of Natural Resources to identify state lands suitable for solar development and includes provisions limiting solar development on certain preserved lands.
Why it matters: Delegates from Eastern Shore counties strongly opposed portions of the bill, arguing that even a 5% threshold applied to priority preservation areas would convert thousands of acres of farmland to solar and fundamentally alter agricultural economies. Supporters and sponsors said the bill protects most preserved acreage while creating a reliable statewide framework for siting and permitting projects and for contractor licensing.
Key discussion points and excerpts - Preservation, acreage and local control: Several Eastern Shore delegates said local farmland and agricultural economies risk being overwhelmed by utility‑scale solar if state law allows site selection at scale without local concurrence. “That 5% is equal to 5, 6, 7000 acres of land per county,” a delegate from the Eastern Shore said, warning of long‑term effects on poultry and farming industries.
- Protections and caveats in the bill: Committee members who supported the bill noted the statutory language protects easement‑encumbered preserved land and that the 5% measure applies to a priority preservation subcategory rather than county‑wide acreage. One committee member emphasized that properties protected by conservation easement cannot be converted to solar under the bill.
- Notification and public meetings: Witnesses and members discussed existing CPCN public notice timelines (60‑day public meeting requirement and 90‑day county notice) and the bill’s supplemental documentation requirements for local engagement. Committee staff said the CPCN framework already includes public meeting and county notification requirements; the bill’s additional requirements were clarified to avoid redundant timelines.
Votes and outcome The committee moved the bill as amended and recorded a roll call vote. Several members from both sides of the aisle recorded “no” votes in the final tally (including Delegates Adams, Wybel, Fisher and Pippy in the committee record). A majority voted to advance the bill.
What’s next If enacted, the bill will require agencies to issue additional guidance for siting, will create a special solar contractor license, and will prompt counties to adjust local siting processes to the new statewide standards. Delegates warned that claims of eminent domain or forced conversions are not part of the bill but said they will monitor implementation closely.
Attribution Bill description and technical clarifications provided by committee staff; multiple delegates on the record representing Eastern Shore counties raised concerns; Ben Baker (PSC staff) and committee staff answered technical questions about notice requirements and CPCN procedures.
