Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Solar Preemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County Council votes to oppose bill that would curb local control over large solar projects
Summary
The Montgomery County Council voted to oppose HB1036/SB931 after members said the bill would preempt local zoning and remove local tax authority for solar projects over 2 megawatts; the motion passed with an 8–2 tally and two abstentions.
The Montgomery County Council voted on Feb. 17 to take a formal position opposing state legislation (HB1036/SB931) that council members said would limit local zoning and taxation authority for large solar and battery projects.
Council members said the leadership package’s solar provisions would prohibit local governments from denying or conditioning projects larger than 2 megawatts if those projects met new statewide siting standards, and would bar local real-property and personal-property taxes on such projects. “That essentially removes local land-use authority and shifts significant revenue away from counties,” a council member said during the discussion.
Garrett Fitzgerald, section chief for climate programs and state policy at the county Department of Environmental Protection, told the council the leadership energy package was presented recently as a multi-bill effort. He described the package’s practical effects: allowing projects that meet statewide standards to proceed without local vetoes and enabling payment-in-lieu-of-tax arrangements that county staff said would likely yield substantially less revenue than current tax treatment.
Council members raised concerns about land-use preemption, effects on agricultural land-preservation revenue streams, and the timing of the bill’s release. Several speakers urged coordination with the Maryland Association of Counties (Mako) to seek changes before hearings; Fitzgerald said Mako had convened a Land Use Group and that counties were still assessing likely outcomes.
A motion to oppose HB1036/SB931 was moved and seconded. The chair reported the resulting count as eight in favor, two opposed and two abstentions; the transcript identifies Council Member Glass and Fanny Gonzalez as abstaining. The council did not record a formal roll-call list of individual yes/no votes in the transcript beyond that tally.
Why it matters: Council members said the bill could change who controls siting decisions for large-scale solar and battery projects and reduce locally collectible revenue. County staff identified potential fiscal impacts and emphasized ongoing engagement with statewide county groups and the delegation in Annapolis.
Next steps: Staff and council members said they will continue discussions with Mako and the county delegation ahead of scheduled hearings; no indication was given that the County Executive had taken a final position on the bill at the time of the meeting.
