Commission debates timing of local review for utility‑scale solar projects under new state law

The Kent County Planning Commission spent substantial time discussing the county’s role in reviewing utility‑scale solar projects after changes to state law. Staff told the commission that House Bill 1036 (now referenced in the record as chapter 624 of the Annotated Code) requires counties to expedite local review for solar projects that meet mandatory state siting and design requirements, which constrains the county’s ability to impose additional conditions for most facilities.

Staff explained that starting the local site‑plan review while projects pursue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) at the Maryland Public Service Commission can expedite the overall schedule but carries the risk that projects will materially change, be delayed, or be withdrawn during PSC review. ‘‘If a solar application is submitted that meets the mandatory state siting and design requirements, then we have to approve it,’’ staff said in the record, describing limits under the statute.

Janet Christiansen Lewis (public commenter) urged the commission to favor advisory staff engagement early in the PSC process and to defer formal planning commission hearings and site‑plan recommendations until after the PSC issues a CPCN and the project is better defined. Lewis cited multiple recent PSC cases in which projects were delayed, redesigned, stayed or withdrawn and argued that holding extensive public hearings on unsettled CPCN applications risks wasting public time and staff resources. ‘‘The public deserves clarity and meaningful participation when projects come before the Planning Commission,’’ Lewis said.

Commissioners debated options: some favored giving advisory comments to applicants and the PSC while avoiding premature formal hearings; others said local review time invested up front can be helpful to identify concerns such as buffering, access or interconnection. Legal staff told commissioners a closed session was scheduled to seek counsel on how to interpret the statutory requirement to 'expedite' local site‑plan review; that closed session was set for June 9 in the record.

Staff also warned of capacity constraints: the planning office reported open planner vacancies and a recent resignation, and commissioners noted that multiple solar applications are pending or expected, which increases staff workload and public‑hearing demand.

The commission did not adopt a formal county policy in the recorded discussion but agreed it could forward recommendations to the county commissioners and that staff should remain available to provide advisory comments during the PSC process. The record shows county commissioners will consider legal guidance for interpretation of the statute and whether to advise changes to the local review sequence.