Updated: July 18, 2025

Note: The Summer 2025 issue of PLENTY magazine features an article by SCA President Steven Findlay on the new state solar law, which went into effect July 1. The piece explores how the legislation evolved, what it does, and the debate surrounding it.

Click here to view/download the full article.

Below is an updated web post on this issue. Details on the new law—which are complex—can be found in the PLENTY piece and are not addressed in this post.

A new state law—The Renewable Energy Certainty Act—went into effect on July 1. It aims to significantly expand solar energy generation in Maryland. It does that by:

• Streamlining regulations for the assessment of proposed ground-based solar facilities

• Giving solar companies easier access to farmland—around 120,000 acres throughout the state, and

• Preventing counties from denying permits for utility-scale solar projects.

We’ll now see how the law affects the solar industry—whether it prompts a flood or just a trickle of new proposals. We’ll see how the state’s Public Service Commission (PSC), which is charged with reviewing solar proposals, adapts its process to the new law. We’ll see how easily the state’s energy companies and regulators accommodate new solar proposals—that is, accept them for addition to the grid, and in what timeframe. And, finally, we’ll see just how many landowners/farmers in the Ag Reserve are interested in converting some of their land from agriculture to solar energy generation.

Before the law passed the legislature in April, no certainty existed around the scope of landowner interest, beyond the anecdotal and a few projects already in process.

Joined by Montgomery Countryside Alliance (MCA), the Montgomery Farm Bureau (MFB), and Montgomery Agricultural Producers (MAP), SCA will be closely tracking implementation of the law and solar proposals in the Ag Reserve and Montgomery County.

The state’s Department of Agriculture is due to release a fact sheet and Q&A on the law soon. We’ll share those with you when we get them.

Solar companies continue to contact landowners in and near the Ag Reserve, offering to evaluate their land for possible solar development. Neither state nor county officials appear to be tracking those offers. Landowners have reported solar offers that would net them 10 to 20 times more money than leasing to a farmer.

That issue and the concept of converting historically agricultural land to non-farm use triggered fierce opposition to the new law in some quarters. SCA shared that concern and fought to amend the bill.

Our main concern: the law appears to create a “slippery slope” that could undermine the ag economy and Ag Reserve over time. But just how steep that slippery slope might be depends on many factors—not the least of which is how the entities that regulate energy supply react.

The most important of those entities is PJM Interconnection. PJM is responsible for operating the wholesale energy market in 13 states and Washington, DC, including Maryland. For years, PJM has told state lawmakers and regulators that it was “backlogged” on solar projects—because such projects had proliferated. Will that backlog now change under the new law and amid rising energy demand? It’s not clear.

Several local solar projects in the regulatory pipeline may provide further insight on how things will go.

One (Chaberton Sugarloaf) is a 3-megawatt project on approximately 11 acres in Dickerson. Another (Chaberton Ramiere) is a 4-megawatt project on 16 acres near Poolesville. A third (Mountain Vale) is a 2-megawatt project on 11 acres at 17700 Barnesville Rd. And a fourth (Project Victoria) is a 4.3-megawatt project at 15220 River Rd in Darnestown (as sister to a 2.5-megawatt solar installation nearby at 13330 Signal Tree Lane, which is already approved and under construction.)

Three of those projects (Dickerson, Poolesville, and Darnestown) are proposed by Chaberton Solar, a company based in Rockville. If approved by the PSC, Chaberton Sugarloaf and Ramiere would be built on land that have been farmed for years and mostly comprised of high-quality class 2 soils.

SCA is an “intervenor” in the PSC process on Chaberton Sugarloaf and Ramiere, together with MCA, MAP and MFB.

See here for information on an upcoming hearing on the Montvale project. And see here for information (from community opponents) on the Victoria project.

We welcome your comments and questions on this issue. They will help inform our advocacy. We’ll be updating this post as things evolve.

Read More

Updated June 9, 2025

Note: Below is an updated report on the status of Montgomery County’s waste management overhaul project. We will be updating this piece frequently in coming months. This link will take you to an article in the Spring 2025 issue of PLENTY magazine on the County’s trash overall plans. That article was written by SCA President Steven Findlay and Vice President Lauren Greenberger several months ago and contains relevant information and background on this issue.

Montgomery County continues to deliberate over the best way to: (a) reduce the volume of its trash; (b) recycle more; (c) divert food scraps to compost; and (d) shutter its aging and polluting trash incinerator.

SCA supports this initiative. But we’re frustrated with how long it’s taking to develop a coherent plan and implement it. Discussion and analyses have been underway for almost 2 years.

Granted, it’s a complex project. Many cities and counties struggle with disposing of their trash in an environmentally sound and cost-effective way. Montgomery County has the added burden of its incinerator, situated in Dickerson. Most of the county’s trash is transported there and burned.

Since 1980, 160 incinerators in the U.S. have been shuttered; only 63 remain in operation. The Dickerson incinerator is now 30 years old and requires constant costly maintenance. Most incinerators get decommissioned at around their 25 th year unless local officials close them down sooner—which is not uncommon.

The Dickerson incinerator is the worst single source of air pollution and greenhouse gases in the county—emitting toxic pollutants and some 600,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalent into our region and the planet’s air. The pollutants—dioxin, furans, lead, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide, and fine particulate matter—are associated with various respiratory ailments, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer.

In the 1970s, 80s, and 90s burning trash to produce energy seemed like a great idea. Landfills deservedly had a bad reputation and landfill space was thought to be limited. New companies, branded as “waste-to-energy,” promised clean facilities. Many state and local politicians and environmental advocates bought into the concept. The lure of killing two birds with one stone was strong—diverting trash from dirty landfills while producing needed energy.

The technology did get better during those decades. But in subsequent years, evidence accumulated that the concept and designs of incinerators had inherent flaws. For one, incinerators never produced substantial amounts of energy. And they are among the dirtiest forms of energy production, even worse than coal plants. Incinerators are also initially expensive to build and, as they age, they become more polluting and less efficient.

Pressured by environmental groups (including SCA) over the past 15 years, Montgomery County leaders pledged numerous times to shutter the incinerator as soon as possible. So, it was a bit of a shock when county officials announced last November they had extended the contract with the organization that operates the incinerator for another 5 years—from April 2026 to April 2031 since the current contract is in force until April 2026.

Notably, and relevant to what follows, the county has an option for early termination of the new contract.

County officials say the main reason for extending the contract is that trash incineration cannot be terminated until (a) waste reduction strategies, (b) technological enhancements, and (c) alternatives means of trash disposal are substantially built-out and fully implemented. The county’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has emphasized to county lawmakers that would take a minimum 5 years (after the end of the current contract, so in 2031).

SCA has pushed for an alternative path that could close the incinerator sooner, even as the waste system is modernized and the volume of trash reduced. Namely, we have suggested the following:

• Make no major investments in an incinerator that will be decommissioned

• Issue an RFP (request for proposal) to identify potential contractors and the costs to send the county’s trash by rail or truck (or both) to landfills that meet the highest environmental standards

• Issue a second RFP for a contractor to recycle all our construction and demolition waste

• Aggressively and urgently pursue waste reduction through enhanced recycling, food scrap composting and a county-wide effort (with financial incentives) to compel citizens to recycle more and reduce what they throw away

• Allow the Dickerson yard trim composting facility to incorporate food scraps, after the plans and impact of this change are fully vetted with SCA and the local community (See more about this below.)

• Modernize and renovate the existing waste processing facilities in Derwood and Dickerson as needed.

Incineration vs. Landfills

Studies dating back years show that incineration is more hazardous and harmful to human health than landfilling as practiced today in most locations, even when the negative impact of long-haul trucking is taken into consideration. In addition, the Dickerson incinerator’s continued operation adversely affects a majority Black community near Richmond Virginia where 150,000 tons of toxic ash from the incinerator are dumped every year.

But, not unexpectedly, some county officials and citizens have concerns about landfilling. It’s beyond the scope of this web post to explore in depth the pros and cons of trash landfills versus trash burning. That’s complex and there’s lots of research and commentary online. Every community’s choice is dependent on its own situation. For example, in some small and densely populated northern European countries, incineration remains popular because landfill space is very limited.

In Montgomery County, some elected officials are worried that sending trash outside the county is a bad thing to do. We understand the concern but think it’s misplaced. Their primary concern should be the continued risk to human health posed by the incinerator. Also:

• As mentioned above: the county already sends approximately 150,000 tons of toxic incinerator ash out-of-state

• Sending unburned trash to well-managed landfills in less populated communities would be safer for any community (usual rural areas) receiving it than toxic ash.

• Most landfills today are much better regulated and operated than even 5 years ago.

• Almost all are private businesses managed for profit. Indeed, interstate hauling of trash is a common practice and a big business throughout the U.S.

Read More

April 10, 2025

Maryland lawmakers enacted legislation on April 7 ending Maryland’s classification of trash incineration as “renewable energy.”

It’s been considered that since 2011, as part of the state’s “renewable portfolio standard” program. As such, the energy generated in “waste-to-energy” (or “refuse-derived fuel) facilities, such as the one in Dickerson, was treated the same as energy produced by solar and wind facilities. That included subsidies to help promote renewable energy sources.

Thus, incinerators effectively took money out of the pockets of solar, wind and other clean energy companies—even as incinerators polluted the air and generated greenhouse gases. Since 2011, Maryland consumers have supported the Dickerson incinerator to the tune of around $30 million.

The new law is a huge win for environmental, civic and energy justice groups—includingSCA—which have been pushing this outcome for years.

Maryland is now the second state, after California, to delete trash incineration from its renewable energy portfolio.

“It’s about time,” said Lauren Greenberger, SCA’s vice president and main advocate on the issue. “It’s been such a ‘waste’ of money—pun intended—and has helped prop up the remaining incinerators in the state, which are too old, inefficient, and produce dirty energy.”

Added Jennifer Kunze, Maryland Program Director with Clean Water Action: “This action will help support the development of zero waste infrastructure by making it easier for composting, reuse and recycling, and other healthier solid waste management practices to compete without fighting uphill against state subsidies supporting the worst solid waste management option.”

Read More