The Howard County League of Women Voters urges a negative vote on CB 55 and CR 133.

We supported the Maryland  Clean Energy Jobs Act (CEJA, SB 516)   in the Maryland legislature this year which requires Maryland to get 50% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2030 and had specific goals for increasing wind and solar.  This local law will make it more difficult for Maryland to reach its critical and ambitious climate goals. 

 

In the recent past, (fall 2016) the Howard County Council authorized  solar on agriculture preservation in CB 59-2016.  We believe the current Howard County policies as reflected on the Planning and Zoning website for agricultural preservation uses are reasonable and do not need to be modified. 

https://www.howardcountymd.gov/Departments/Planning-and-Zoning/Conservation-and-Preservation/Agriculture

Given the mandates of CEJA for clean energy, we think it is critical for the county to go forward with planned solar projects.  A one year moratorium could have a severely adverse effect on the development of the solar industry in this county. 

We saw on Facebook that Council member Jungman plans to offer an amendment to limit the impact of this bill to  Commercial Solar Facilities on Agriculture Land Preservation Program easements only, however we still oppose this bill.  We think the current rules are sufficient to preserve some farmland for other uses. And at the solar panels end of life they will be removed and the farmland will  be fully restored. 

This moratorium would make it harder for BGE customers to sign up for locally-sourced solar energy. 

With regard to CR 133, action is ongoing at the State level.  Senator Pinsky had a solar siting study bill in the 2019 legislature (SB 744) which passed the Senate but not the House of Delegates and that in August 2019 Governor Hogan established a Task Force on Renewable Energy Development and Siting which will make recommendations on solar siting both on an interim basis to the legislature In January 2020 and a final report in September 2020. The legislature and the Governor may develop policy in the future, but we believe a Howard County study at this time recommended by CR 133 is premature.

 

Finally, solar panels are not antithetical to agriculture as some allege. Yale Environment 360 notes putting solar panels on less than 1 percent of the world’s agricultural land could produce enough energy to fulfill global electricity demand.  (They cite this August 2019 study published in the journal Scientific Reports.)   We do not have to choose between solar and feeding ourselves. In addition the panels provide an income stream which can help farmers stay in business.

For all these reasons, we urge disapproval of CB 55 and CR 133.