Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maryland House extends community‑solar tax treatment, leaders say rules preserve farming
Summary
The House passed Senate Bill 344 to extend a property‑tax treatment for community solar to 2030 and to allow agrivoltaics on agricultural land; members pressed sponsors on how farms would remain productive under panels and whether corporate landowners could claim the benefit.
The Maryland House of Delegates on March 25 passed Senate Bill 344, extending the state’s property‑tax treatment for community solar projects and explicitly allowing agrivoltaic systems — solar panels installed over land that remains in agricultural production — through 2030. Lawmakers debated whether the measure would preserve active farming or merely extend tax benefits to landowners.
Supporters said the bill protects farmers’ livelihoods while encouraging clean energy development. “It extended it to 2030,” the floor leader said on the floor, explaining the bill revises the program’s termination date and establishes a pre‑construction determination process by the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) to confirm agricultural use. That SDAT check, supporters said, is intended to prevent projects that no longer support agriculture from qualifying.
Opponents pressed for specifics about how crops and livestock would coexist with panels and asked whether the property‑tax benefit effectively aids solar developers. “The break is to the owner of the land, the farmers,” one sponsor replied, adding the farmer — not the solar company — receives the exemption. Members also asked whether corporate owners, including out‑of‑state or foreign corporations that own farmland, would qualify; the chamber was told that ownership does not by itself bar eligibility if agricultural activity is present.
Floor debate focused on operational details. Speakers described agrivoltaic configurations that raise panels high enough to allow tractors and harvesting equipment to operate between rows and noted livestock grazing under arrays as a common practice. Sponsors pointed to an amendment requiring SDAT pre‑approval of proposed agrivoltaic sites to avoid future disputes over whether land remains in agricultural use.
The bill drew a mixture of support and opposition, particularly from lawmakers representing Eastern Shore and ag‑preservation constituencies who warned that some preserved farmland could be covered substantially by panels while still meeting minimum grazing or crop‑production rules. After a motion to end debate, the clerk recorded 101 votes in the affirmative and 32 in the negative; the bill was declared passed.
The next steps: because SB 344 originated in the Senate, the bill now goes to the Senate for any technical corrections or to the governor if concurrence has been completed. Lawmakers and supporters said they expect SDAT to develop the pre‑construction procedures spelled out in the bill before projects seek eligibility determinations.
