Chaberton Sugarloaf Decision
Chaberton Ramire Decision
Background:
Much more about the two Chaberton projects on prime soils. See the table below for quick details. Sugarloaf takes 16 prime acres out of production- Ramiere takes 11.
Chaberton Ramire Decision
Background:
Much more about the two Chaberton projects on prime soils. See the table below for quick details. Sugarloaf takes 16 prime acres out of production- Ramiere takes 11.
This year SB 931 - the Renewable Energy Certainty Act passed, allowing commercial solar on up to 5% of prime soils in each Maryland county - that is 5000 acres of the Ag Reserve. Chaberton officials were flaunting their influence on this bill when farmer advocates were denied a seat at the table.
Chaberton Sugarloaf and Ramiere (not subject to provisions of SB 931) approved by PSC
In her decision approving both Chaberton solar projects in the Reserve the Public Service Commission judge imposed conditions that were recommended by the Department of Natural Resources’ Power Plant Research Program and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, namely that Chaberton (a) submit its agrivoltaics plan to MoCo at least 30 days before operation, (b) provide an annual report to the MoCo Attorney General and M-NCPPC regarding its agrivoltaics activities and its efforts to encourage continued farming onsite, and (c) update the plan every five years or whenever a change occurs in the agrivoltaics activity.
Those conditions, the judge said, were the “bare minimum,” and she added several more, the most significant of which is this:
Chaberton shall obtain financial surety in the form of a bond or letter of credit from a financial institution in an amount not less than $500,000 payable to Montgomery County, in the event the Commission makes a finding that Project Owner failed to ensure continued use of Agrivoltaics as defined by PUA § 7-306.2(a)(2) throughout the life of the Project.
Here is the enforcement mechanism: if Chaberton (or the new owner buying Chaberton out) fails to maintain agrivoltaics on the property – which in this case means sheep grazing (the applicant's only stated viable ag use)– then MoCo, PPRP, “or any other Party to the case” – which includes intervenors (MCA, SCA, MC Farm Bureau, MAP) – may notify “the Project’s Representative who will have 45 days” to advise the Commission how it is dealing with the matter. Then, presumably, if the Commission finds that the Owner “failed to ensure continued use of agrivoltaics,” the surety (i.e., the company issuing the bond) would be required to pay MoCo the $500,000 bond.
Intervenors will seek clarity, through the provision for appeal, regarding both the project approval and the enforcement of these conditions including mandatory inspections. Moreover, the penalty, if levied, should be directed to the County's agricultural preservation fund.
Stay tuned.
In her decision approving both Chaberton solar projects in the Reserve the Public Service Commission judge imposed conditions that were recommended by the Department of Natural Resources’ Power Plant Research Program and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, namely that Chaberton (a) submit its agrivoltaics plan to MoCo at least 30 days before operation, (b) provide an annual report to the MoCo Attorney General and M-NCPPC regarding its agrivoltaics activities and its efforts to encourage continued farming onsite, and (c) update the plan every five years or whenever a change occurs in the agrivoltaics activity.
Those conditions, the judge said, were the “bare minimum,” and she added several more, the most significant of which is this:
Chaberton shall obtain financial surety in the form of a bond or letter of credit from a financial institution in an amount not less than $500,000 payable to Montgomery County, in the event the Commission makes a finding that Project Owner failed to ensure continued use of Agrivoltaics as defined by PUA § 7-306.2(a)(2) throughout the life of the Project.
Here is the enforcement mechanism: if Chaberton (or the new owner buying Chaberton out) fails to maintain agrivoltaics on the property – which in this case means sheep grazing (the applicant's only stated viable ag use)– then MoCo, PPRP, “or any other Party to the case” – which includes intervenors (MCA, SCA, MC Farm Bureau, MAP) – may notify “the Project’s Representative who will have 45 days” to advise the Commission how it is dealing with the matter. Then, presumably, if the Commission finds that the Owner “failed to ensure continued use of agrivoltaics,” the surety (i.e., the company issuing the bond) would be required to pay MoCo the $500,000 bond.
Intervenors will seek clarity, through the provision for appeal, regarding both the project approval and the enforcement of these conditions including mandatory inspections. Moreover, the penalty, if levied, should be directed to the County's agricultural preservation fund.
Stay tuned.
Montgomery Countryside Alliance is the lean (but mighty!) nonprofit organization build both of and for the Ag Reserve. Our focus on the farms, forests and water quality of Montgomery County depends on local support. We are crafting our workplan for 2026 now, we'd be honored by your tax-deductible support so we can take on all the challenges impacting local farms. Thank You!
