Renewable Energy/Waste Disposal/Recycling
Updated February 7, 2025
On Jan. 28, SCA shared its perspective on the County’s waste management plans at a briefing before the County Council. At the invitation from the Council’s new president, Kate Stewart, we shared the floor with the County’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
It was a welcome opportunity to again state our opposition to the County Executive’s and DEP’s plan, announced on Nov. 25, 2024, to continue burning trash at the County’s incinerator in Dickerson for up to eight more years—rather than shutting the incinerator down in April 2026 as has been pledged for some years.
At the same time, we restated our strong support for DEP’s overall initiative to remake its waste management systems over the next decade. That initiative includes enhanced recycling, an effort to compost all the county’s food scraps (commercial and home), a simultaneous roll out of unit pricing for residential trash (pay only for what you throw away), and new processes and technologies to reduce the amount of garbage currently being burned in the trash incinerator in Dickerson.
On Nov. 25, County officials said they have authorized the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (an entity that manages the County’s waste disposal) to extend for 5 years (from April 2026 to April 2031, and on an “emergency” basis) its contract with the private company Reworld (formerly known as Covanta), which operates the incinerator.
The announcement states that the County has the “option for early termination” of the contract. A planning timeline on the county website indicates, however, that decommissioning would not begin until 2030 with full closure not until 2031 or even 2032. DEP officials on Jan 28 affirmed that timeline to the Council. (SCA has not been granted access to the terms of the contract or the clause/section that would allow early termination.)
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, such as landfilling are substantially built-out and fully implemented. DEP claims that would take a minimum 5 years and more likely 6 to 7 years.
At the Jan 28 Council briefing, Lauren Greenberger, SCA’s Vice President, presented an alternative path that could allow the incinerator to be shuttered in 3 years (by the end of 2027). (See Lauren’s statement here.) We recommend the following:
Flesh out the County's contingency plan for incinerator closure. This would focus on immediate hauling of trash from Shady Grove to an acceptable landfill, and rolling out the infrastructure improvements as recommended by the County consultants over time.
Make no major investments in the incinerator that will soon be decommissioned.
Allow a one- to two-year contract extension and follow the timeline that Zero Waste Associates provided to meet all contractual and legal obligations to change from incineration to landfilling.
Issue an RFP as soon as possible to identify potential contractors and the costs to long-haul from Shady Grove to specified acceptable landfills under long-term contracts.
Set a firm date for closure that will allow the Dickerson Yard Trim Composting Facility to be expanded to receive food scraps quickly and in the most cost-effective manner.
In addition, and in tandem, set up a system over the next 3 years to:
Aggressively 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
Onboard new waste separation and recycling technologies on an emergency basis, with dedicated funding from the Council
Modify, modernize and renovate the existing waste processing facilities in Derwood and Dickerson as needed, with dedicated funding from the Council
According to two reports commissioned by the County Executive in recent years, such an approach would be less harmful to human health and likely less costly over time. (See Beyond Incineration report here.)
According to those and other studies, incineration is more hazardous than landfilling as practiced today, even when the negative impact of trucking is taken into consideration. In addition, the incinerator’s continued operation adversely affects a majority Black community in Virginia where 150,000 tons of toxic ash from the incinerator is dumped every year.
November 15, 2024
This month, Montgomery County launched the latest phase of its initiative to reduce food waste by encouraging businesses and residents to compost instead of discarding food scraps in the trash. (See a short video later in this article.)
Food scraps account for about one-quarter of the county's total trash volume. In 2023, the county estimates that approximately 90,000 tons of food waste ended up in the trash, most of which was incinerated at the county's facility in Dickerson.
Composting food scraps is an environmentally beneficial practice (and thus, a no-brainer), but it requires significant changes in behavior for households and businesses, as well as adaptations to the county’s waste management systems. The county has been running a pilot composting program for several years and now plans to increase participation and enhance its infrastructure.
Part of this effort includes allowing residents to “recycle” food scraps at the curbside, just as they do with glass, plastic, paper, and cardboard. The collected scraps would be transported to a central location, likely the Dickerson yard trim compost facility.
Click “Read More” to go to the full article and watch a short YouTube video of the County’s recent ceremony on the composting initiative.
“Our aquifer is the bloodstream for all farmers in the Agricultural Reserve. It’s what sustains us.” Gene Kingsbury, Kingsbury’s Orchard
This article is excerpted from the Spring 2024 issue of Plenty Magazine. We present the initial portion of the article. You may then link to Plenty’s website to read the remainder of the piece, and see the charts and photos that accompany it.
“Our aquifer is the bloodstream for all farmers in the Agricultural Reserve. It’s what sustains us.”
Gene Kingsbury, Kingsbury’s Orchard
More often than not, when asked, folks in the D.C. metro region do not really have a fix on where the water that flows from their faucets comes from. Sure, residents and businesses know that they pay mWashington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) for their water and sewage service, and they may know that the origin of their water is the mighty Potomac River. But as to the details—filtration plant operations, the infrastructure that delivers the water from plants to homes and businesses, what happens when there is prolonged drought, these bits are hardly known.
More mysterious to many is where roughly 25-30,000 homes, businesses and farm enterprises get their water from in the nearly one-third of Montgomery County that is wholly outside the WSSC service area by design. nd that if the story I aim to share in two parts.
A class of toxic chemicals called PFAS can contaminate water, farmland, wells, and crops. These chemicals have been linked to cancer and other diseases and do not break down in the environment. An organization called PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) is leading an effort to probe whether PFAS chemicals are present—and if so, to what degree—on Ag Reserve land and in water sources.
Testing to date has yielded concerning results. Levels of several forms of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances of which there are thousands) are substantially higher than EPA recommended quantities in drinking water in Poolesville. As a result, the town closed two of its 12 wells. These concerning results also led SCA and Montgomery Countryside Alliance (MCA) to join PEER in January in calling on Montgomery County officials to prohibit the use of certain PFAS-containing fertilizers, called biosolids, on county agricultural land—to prevent further contamination of ground and surface waters.
January 5, 2024
“Agrivoltaics,” is a new buzzword in solar energy circles. The term applies to land used for agriculture (“agri”) and for generating solar energy (“voltaics”) by solar panels. Agrivoltaics can refer to just a few solar panels mounted on ground-based structures (as opposed to rooftops) or a whole field of them, with crops or animals grazing underneath.
A successful agrivoltaic project has some type of farming thriving adjacent to or under the panels, with the panels generating sufficient power to justify the economics of constructing and installing them. That can be a tall order—but not an impossible one. Agrivoltaics projects are very much in the research phase. The approach is not a fully proven yet, though it’s being viewed as workable under the right circumstances. For now, much of what’s known about agrivoltaics has come from research in dry areas in the western U.S. Some of these areas are sunnier and hotter than the Mid-Atlantic region in the summer and colder in the winter. Thus, agrivoltaic projects that are successful out west aren’t necessarily relevant to the Mid-Atlantic.
Other concerns and potential downsides are emerging. Ground solar panels can disturb and compact soil. They also decrease the amount of sun that reaches plants, affecting photosynthesis. And ground panels can adversely affect how much rain reaches plants and in what pattern. For example, run-off from panels can cause water to pool in some areas. Another practical concern is how farmers get equipment in and around ground panels. All these issues, and others, are being studied.
Agrivoltaic proposals for the Ag Reserve
In 2020, Montgomery County adopted a zoning change that allowed solar arrays on land zoned for agriculture in Montgomery’s County’s Ag Reserve. The measure was a compromise. It recognized the need to generate more renewable energy in the county while at the same time preserving farming, especially on the county’s best soils. The measure also encouraged more production of rooftop solar. It increased the allowable amount of solar production for landowners from 120% of their personal use to 200%. That meant people could sell any excess solar electricity they generated back into the electricity grid. Community solar arrays, which are smaller than “utility scale” arrays, are also allowed under the measure. They can produce up to 2 megawatts of electricity, and generally require 10 to 12 acres of land. Importantly, placing solar arrays on farming soils designated class 1 or class 2 (high quality soils) is prohibited.
Updated February 20, 2025
Introduction
The solar energy industry has targeted Maryland farmland to build industrial scale facilities. Companies are sending inquiries to landowners statewide to lease their land for the siting of 20 to 50 acre (or larger) solar panel arrays. The offers include eye-popping fees for such leases—five to 10 times what a landowner would be able make for leasing the same land to a contract farmer growing crops or raising farm animals.
Solar companies are also challenging local zoning ordinances that protect farmland. Most notably, a company called Chaberton is attempting to undermine Montgomery County’s restrictions on siting of large solar facilities on farmland in the Ag Reserve. You can read about that below.
Most recently, the solar industry helped write and is pushing proposed legislation in the Maryland legislature that would eclipse County laws that prohibit siting industrial-scale solar facilities on good quality farmland. If passed as written the bill would, for example, override Montgomery County’s solar zoning law that protects farmland in the Ag Reserve.
We are seeking changes to that proposed law—The Renewable Energy Certainty Act (SB 931/HB1036). We do not yet oppose the entire law which would also make it easier for solar companies to create so-called community solar projects on non-arable land and on rooftops throughout the state. That would benefit state and County initiatives to improve the supply of renewable (solar and other) energy to meet the state’s goal of sharply reducing climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions.
Please consider writing your local representatives in the state legislature to remove the offensive provisions in the law that would supplant good farmland with solar facilities.
Background
SCA helped shape a Montgomery County zoning ordinance in 2021 that allows farmers and landowners in the Ag Reserve—working with solar developers—to place ground-based solar arrays on portions of their land if those arrays don’t take prime arable land out of agricultural use.
Under this policy, solar arrays must meet certain requirements and be approved by County regulators. For now, the total acreage allowed for solar array placement in the Ag Reserve is 1,800 acres, which equates to about 2% of agricultural land in the County. In addition to preserving agricultural land, the rules governing the initiative protect forests and environmentally sensitive areas.
The ordinance permits up to two megawatts of energy per project. It also allows homeowners who install solar arrays (whether on their roofs or on the ground) to produce twice as much energy as they need and sell it back into the grid. Thus, if a homeowner needed 30 kilowatt-hours per day for their own needs, they could produce 60 and sell 30 back to the grid.
Report from the County
This policy and zoning change has been in effect for four years. In an assessment of the impact to date, published in December 2023, the County’s Planning Department took stock, highlighted some problems, and identified outcomes to date.
First, the report says two Ag Reserve solar projects are in process under the terms of the 2021 zoning change. Construction on both has begun. One project plans about 13 acres in solar, the other about 8 acres.
In the words of the report: “While [these projects] demonstrate a modest start to the County’s solar program…it also demonstrates it is possible to promote solar projects on agricultural lands, aiding in reducing carbon emissions and contributing towards our larger renewable energy and solar production goals, while ensuring agriculture remains the primary use within the Agricultural Reserve.”
Second, the report notes that the Maryland state legislature passed legislation in 2022 affecting “community” solar projects, including those on farms. Recent court decisions also apply. Both are complex. The upshot is that state law could eclipse County law for solar projects that will generate more than two megawatts of energy—the limit established under the 2021 solar initiative for projects on farmland in the Ag Reserve. And, notably, that state law also allows such larger “community” solar projects (up to 5 megawatts) to be on arable land if the landowner prefers.
This state regulation requires that such projects be vetted by a state agency called the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC). The regulation also requires that the PSC give “due consideration” to local zoning ordinances and laws.
Even so, the law, along with related recent court cases, has created a huge opening for solar companies and landowners interested in larger-scale solar projects on farmland (in and outside of the Ag Reserve).
Indeed, two such larger projects have been proposed in the Ag Reserve. Both are in the Poolesville-Dickerson area. One is a 3-megawatt project on approximately 11 acres within a 118-acre tract of land at 20507 Darnestown Road in Dickerson (“Chaberton Solar Sugarloaf”).
The other is a 4-megawatt project on 16 acres within a 53-acre tract of land at 17600 Whites Ferry Road, Poolesville (“Chaberton Solar Ramiere”). Both would be built in fields that have been farmed for years and are mostly made up of Class 2 soils (and thus a violation of Montgomery County law).
These two projects are the first tests of whether the PSC (and thus the state) will defer to County law when evaluating larger scale community solar projects—and if so, what will this look like? Chaberton Solar and the landowners they are working with assert that the state law eclipses County law and thus the projects should be approved. They further argue that the projects would benefit the public with locally produced renewable energy.
SCA together with Montgomery Countryside Alliance, the Montgomery County Farm Bureau, and Montgomery Agricultural Producers petitioned the PSC in 2024 to be a formal participant in the agency’s deliberations. That petition was accepted. The Chaberton Sugarloaf case has been underway at the PSC for almost a year. Montgomery County joined the four intervenor groups in early 2025 in opposing Chaberton’s proposal. A PSC decision is expected this spring.
SCA’s Position
SCA believes the PSC should defer to County law in these two cases. Why? Because the Montgomery County Council and interested parties spent two years (2020-2021) intensively debating the issue and, in the end, hammered out a workable compromise that would not risk sacrificing good farmland. Moreover, allowing the projects to move forward would set a precedent that would make it difficult for the PSC to turn down future similar projects. That could create, over time, significant pressure on landowners to break leases with farmers to accept lucrative offers from solar companies, thus taking agricultural land out of production to install solar panels. It may also pressure the County Council to modify its existing solar ordinance. The Montgomery County Planning Board in January recommended that the County Council reevaluate its solar zoning law.