Kent County commissioners debate local review of utility-scale solar as state rules limit local authority

County planning staff and commissioners spent an extended portion of the May 5 meeting discussing the county’s process for reviewing utility-scale solar site plans and how that process intersects with state Public Service Commission (PSC) review.

Carla Herbert, director of planning, housing and zoning, said county practice has been to allow initial site-plan steps (concept and preliminary review) to proceed while applicants pursue PSC approvals, but the county requires final local approval only after state permits are in place. "We have allowed these solar facilities to begin the site plan review process while they are still going through the state level process with the PSC," Herbert said, noting staff has no clear definition of when an application is "substantially complete." She added final approvals are withheld until applicants secure required state permits and related approvals, such as sediment control and stormwater plans.

Several commissioners and participants warned that local planning review can feel like wasted effort if the PSC later changes a project or denies a CPCN. One commissioner asked why applicants submit small projects if grid-connection upgrades make them unviable; a speaker answered that community-scale projects can receive retail rates, have state supports, and face incentive-driven economics that favor smaller configurations.

A participant raised grid-interconnection concerns and Delmarva interconnection costs, saying early applicants sometimes request extensions because upgrade costs make projects unaffordable. The participant described an instance where a company under suspension had not signed a Delmarva agreement and the PSC judge suspended the case. "They have not signed agreements with Delmarva, and none of this is on public record...a company was just put on suspension with the PSC because they had not signed the agreement with Delmarva to move forward with the price upgrades," the speaker said.

Other commissioners noted the local planning commission’s preliminary findings (for example, on historic-aesthetic impacts) can be sent to the PSC and potentially influence CPCN conditions; staff cited a Carroll County case where local review appeared to affect a CPCN order.

Commissioners considered potential legal risks of changing local procedures to require PSC decisions before any local review and suggested a closed-session legal discussion to evaluate the liabilities of a stricter local approach. No formal policy change or vote on the county’s review process was taken; staff were directed to continue current procedures and commissioners signaled willingness to return with additional legal counsel if necessary.

The exchange also covered site-specific updates: staff told the board one Still Pond project is under construction while another approved project had not moved forward for months, and commissioners expressed concern about dead bonded trees where construction had stalled.

The discussion concluded without new formal restrictions; commissioners left open the option of a legal review in closed session to clarify risk and next steps.