control of land-use and zoning. Some called it an“ unprecedented land grab” by the state, one cloaked in the“ green virtue” of expanding solar.
In contrast, the bill’ s sponsors— including Brian Feldman of Montgomery County’ s District 15, which encompasses a large portion of the Ag Reserve— argued that the state needed to produce more of its own energy, and the more renewable energy the better. Supporters also asserted that uniform state regs were essential to this aim, and that landowners deserved the right to make money by putting solar on their land if they wanted to, without so many county zoning obstacles.
Opponents seized on that point. They argued that setting up a contest between farming and solar powerfully favors solar. Indeed, solar companies have blanketed the state with lucrative land lease deals in recent years. Such deals often promise landowners 10 to 20 times what they could make off the same land from farming— thousands of dollars an acre versus hundreds. Not surprisingly, the number of landowners willing to carve out part of their land for solar— usually 10 to 30 acres but sometimes up to 100 acres— has sharply increased in the last five years.
In the end, the bill’ s sponsors relented, but not much. They limited the amount of some farmland that could be put into solar.
The law— The Renewable Energy Certainty Act— was signed by the Governor on May 20 and goes into effect July 1. It was pushed hard by the solar industry and aims to significantly expand solar energy generation in Maryland. It does that in three broad ways, by:
( a) easing the regulatory path for approval of solar facilities;
( b) giving solar companies easier access to farmland— around 120,000 additional acres throughout the state; and
( c) preventing counties from denying permits for utility-scale solar projects. Henceforth, the state will call the shots on where most solar goes.
The legislation pitted the solar industry against the state’ s $ 3.3 billion, 2-million-acre farming industry( 32 % of state land). It also sparked a heated debate over land-use control— state vs county— that sets a precedent and has implications beyond solar.
Deliberations were intense. Political leaders, farmers and preservation advocates in numerous counties strongly objected to the state’ s“ usurpation” of county
The“ compromise” and the details
The so-called compromise is this: areas that a county has set aside and preserved for agriculture— such as Montgomery County’ s Ag Reserve— will have 95 % of that land protected from solar development. Put another way: 5 % of such already-protected farmland in each county is now open for solar business. Proposals to place solar on such protected land will be vetted by a state agency called the Public Service Commission( PSC). Counties will still be able to weigh in at the PSC with their views on projects, but they will not be able to stop them. Once a county’ s 5 % cap is reached, local lawmakers can choose to go beyond the cap with their own zoning. But such solar projects must still meet the state’ s new solar regs. To be clear, solar projects on non-Ag protected land are not subject to the 5 % cap.
Protected Ag lands in Maryland are called Priority Preservation Areas, or PPAs. Montgomery County’ s 93,000-acre Ag Reserve is a PPA. All but four Maryland counties have PPAs. plenty I summer growing 2025 5