WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 478

Public Utilities - Solar Energy Generating Stations - Local Approval

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Paul Corderman and 4 co-sponsors

SB 478 would force the Maryland PSC to obtain written approval from every affected county or municipality before approving a CPCN for a solar project, giving local veto power.

Hearing 3/06 at 1:00 p.m.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 478

SB 478 — Public Utilities: Solar Energy Generating Stations — Local Approval

Status: Hearing scheduled 3/06 at 1:00 p.m. | Introduced: February 19, 2025
Primary sponsor: Senator Gallion (et al.) — Education, Energy, and the Environment committee

Main purpose

SB 478 would require the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) to obtain written approval from every county or municipal corporation in which any portion of a proposed solar energy generating station would be located before the PSC may approve a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for that generating station. In short, local governments would have an explicit veto right over PSC approval of large solar projects within their borders.

Key provisions

  • Adds a new subsection to Article — Public Utilities (proposed § 7‑207(i)) stating: the PSC may not approve a CPCN for a solar energy generating station unless each affected county/municipal corporation has provided written approval for construction to the PSC.
  • Applies to generating stations that require a CPCN under existing law (the CPCN process remains PSC’s licensing path for larger power plants).
  • Does not change existing CPCN procedural requirements beyond adding the local written-approval prerequisite.
  • Effective date in the bill text: October 1, 2025.

Background and legal context

  • Under current Maryland law the PSC is the lead agency for siting and licensing generating stations through the CPCN process; that process includes consultation with state and local entities and public hearings.
  • The fiscal note summarizes prior case law (Bd. of Cty. Commissioners of Washington Cty. v. Perennial Solar, 2019) and 2023 legislation (Chapter 515) that clarified some aspects of local permitting authority for projects subject to CPCNs. SB 478 goes further by making express local written approval a statutory prerequisite to PSC approval.

Who would be affected

  • Solar developers proposing utility‑scale solar generating stations that require a CPCN — projects could be blocked if any affected county/municipality withholds written approval.
  • The PSC and state agencies involved in the CPCN review (Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Department of the Environment) — procedural workload may change if fewer applications are filed.
  • Local governments — given explicit approval authority, they would have more control over siting outcomes and may incur modest review/hearing costs.
  • Small businesses and contractors in the solar project supply chain — potentially reduced project volume could lower demand for services.

Fiscal and policy impacts (from Legislative Services fiscal note)

  • State and local fiscal effects are not expected to be materially significant. PSC and DNR operations likely unchanged materially.
  • The PSC anticipates the bill would materially reduce the number of CPCNs granted for solar projects because counties often oppose large solar developments.
  • This reduction could dissuade some developers from seeking CPCNs, shift projects to more permissive jurisdictions, or encourage smaller-scale projects that do not require CPCNs. The fiscal note warns the change could indirectly affect state renewable energy outcomes (RPS credit prices, alternative compliance payments) if in‑state solar capacity is meaningfully reduced — those effects were not quantified.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Hearing scheduled March 6, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. (Education, Energy, and the Environment committee).
  • If enacted as written, the statutory language becomes effective October 1, 2025.
  • The bill would alter the standard CPCN review sequence by requiring local written approvals before final PSC action, potentially changing developers’ pre‑application and community engagement practices.

If you want, I can:
- Draft a one‑page explainer focused on likely outcomes for developers and local governments; or
- Produce talking points summarizing arguments for and against the bill from stakeholder perspectives.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.