Community Solar Energy Generating Systems - Prohibited Locations - Adjacent Parcels
Summary
SB265 would amend Maryland’s Community Solar Energy Generating Systems law to remove a specific siting restriction tied to adjacent parcels. Under current law, a community solar project generally cannot be located on the same parcel or an adjacent parcel as another existing or proposed community solar project if the combined installed capacity would exceed 5 megawatts. The bill repeals the “adjacent parcel” language, so the capacity cap would continue to apply to the same parcel, but not to neighboring parcels simply because they are adjacent.
The bill leaves intact the existing exceptions for certain project types and locations, including rooftops, industrial-zoned areas, brownfields, parking lots, roadways, parking structures, transportation rights-of-way, airports, ecologically compromised land, and certain larger co-located projects that meet low- and moderate-income subscriber or agrivoltaics requirements. The bill would take effect October 1, 2026.
Impact
SB265 would narrow the geographic restriction in Public Utilities Article § 7-306.2(d)(13) by eliminating the prohibition on community solar systems on adjacent parcels when evaluating the 5-megawatt combined capacity limit. As a result, developers could potentially site separate community solar projects on neighboring parcels without triggering the same parcel-based cap, so long as the remaining statutory requirements and exceptions are satisfied. The bill does not alter the broader Community Solar Energy Generating Systems Program, subscriber rules, low- and moderate-income participation requirements, or the existing 10-megawatt and agrivoltaics exceptions.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral and technical rather than overtly partisan. The measure is framed as a targeted cleanup or loosening of a siting rule for community solar development, suggesting support from stakeholders interested in expanding project feasibility and land-use flexibility. No opposing viewpoints are documented in the supplied record.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be land-use and project-density concerns versus solar development flexibility. Supporters would likely argue that removing the adjacent-parcel restriction allows more efficient use of land and reduces an artificial barrier to community solar deployment. Potential critics, such as nearby landowners, local zoning interests, or those concerned about cumulative impacts of clustered solar facilities, may worry that the change could enable larger concentrations of solar projects in a small area even if they are on separate parcels. The bill does not include any new safeguards beyond the existing capacity limits and exceptions.