Caroline County hearing over solar and battery rules stretches into in-depth safety and decommissioning debate; hearing continued to June 29

Caroline County supervisors opened a lengthy public hearing on June 3 over proposed zoning changes to allow and regulate utility-scale solar projects and associated battery energy storage systems (BESS) after new state law takes effect July 1, 2026. Planning staff said the changes implement the statutory requirement that localities provide a process — via special exception — to consider solar facilities and to regulate related matters such as setbacks, fencing, visual mitigation and decommissioning.

The draft ordinance adds a new Section 23 covering solar projects, energy storage facilities, and substations and inserts new definitions for private/public energy generation, energy storage project/accessory, and substations. Planning Director Jeff Hughes said staff incorporated recommendations from the planning commission and county attorney. The planning commission asked that applicants be required to hold a community meeting and to submit material safety data sheets, a notarized affidavit about PFAS in panel materials, and detailed plans for vegetation, screening and water use for panel cleaning.

Why it matters: state law compels counties to allow the special-exception review pathway for solar proposals, but local rules still determine what conditions must be met to protect public safety, water and farmland and to secure decommissioning funds. Supervisors said they want as much local control as the statute permits.

Safety, containment and monitoring
Chief (Fire) Loftess briefed the board on battery technologies and risks — fire, explosion, toxic plumes and environmental contamination — and urged adoption of NFPA 855 performance standards as part of the county ordinance. The draft requires developers to prepare hazard analyses, emergency response plans, annual training and drills for first responders, and systems for remote monitoring and alarms tied to battery-management and gas-detection systems.

Planning staff and the planning commission recommended robust BESS-specific controls: monitoring wells and pre-construction groundwater testing, a documented plan for how and when panels and batteries would be washed (including chemicals used), and requirements that sites demonstrate containment for contaminated runoff. The PC proposed that on-site containment tanks be sized to hold the equivalent of five storage containers, and staff discussed a notional 100,000-gallon figure to ensure hazardous water is retained and removed for proper treatment following an incident.

Decommissioning and financial assurance
The draft requires a county‑approved decommissioning plan and a financial guarantee (irrevocable letter of credit, cash or other instrument) that must be updated every five years to account for inflation and repowering or salvage changes. The planning commission recommended removing salvage-credit assumptions (i.e., conservatively not counting uncertain salvage value), requiring third-party cost estimates, and allowing the county to require evidence of where removed panels and batteries will be taken for lawful disposal or recycling.

Public input: safety, water, farmland and trust
More than a dozen residents spoke during the public hearing. Common themes: concerns about toxic smoke and runoff after battery fires, impacts on groundwater and wells, loss of farmland and rural character, and distrust of developer promises. Kevin Collins and Rick Hanley urged the board to adopt the toughest practical standards and to guard against outside pressure from industry or utilities. Several residents asked for specifics on plume size, emergency notification systems, and where contaminated material would be removed.

Legal and procedural context
County staff and counsel told the board the state law sets minimum criteria the ordinance must allow; it does not mandate approval of any special exception. Supervisors pointed out that while the county must provide a review process for solar projects, the board retains discretion to deny individual special-exception applications based on the local facts and conditions.

Next steps and board action
After hours of presentations, public comment and line‑by‑line discussion, the board voted to continue the matter to a specially scheduled meeting on Monday, June 29, 2026, to give staff time to incorporate the board’s edits and to circulate a revised draft for review. No final zoning vote was taken on June 3.

Quotes that capture the debate
"These incidents raise real concerns about toxic smoke, chemical contamination, emergency response challenges, and the risks placed on nearby communities when facilities fail," said Kevin Collins during public comment. Chief Loftess told the board: "NFPA 855 requires the business to do a hazard mitigation analysis — that drives the emergency response plan and training — and that is what local responders will need to use."

What remains unresolved: whether the ordinance should specify a single buffer distance (several supervisors preferred a single number rather than a 150–200 ft range), whether to exclude salvage credits from decommissioning calculations, and how to ensure water and hazardous waste resulting from a BESS incident are collected and transported to certified disposal facilities. The June 29 session will focus on incorporating technical edits, clarifying plant/vegetation language, and firming up financial assurance and emergency response requirements.