By Brian Shane

Staff Writer

(July 24, 2025) Worcester County officials want more control over the outcome when a field of solar panels dies and the cleanup costs come due, but state law is tying their hands.

The issue came up through discussion of a proposed Queponco Road solar project, from Massachusetts-based developer New Leaf Energy. Planned for a 191-acre family farm outside Newark, the solar farm will cover 40 acres. It’s scheduled to go online is 2027.

Cleanup of solar fields on agricultural land can be costly. The hardware at salvage sells for pennies on the dollar, and the acreage left behind may be sold at a loss because it’s deemed hazardous property, county officials have said.

Even more so, county leaders have said they don’t want to be kept in the dark – no pun intended – if and when acres and acres of solar panels suddenly stop delivering power, for whatever reason, leaving behind electronic carcasses. Some commissioners have been quietly pushing the topic for months as new solar projects come before them for review.

The commissioners were briefed Tuesday on the Queponco 5 MW project as a “consultation” – where the county may offer input but have no real recourse if officials don’t like the project.

Commissioner Chip Bertino asked who held the decommissioning bond – meaning, the cash set aside to fund an eventual site cleanup when the solar farm goes offline – for a proposed 40-acre, 5 MW project off Queponco Road.

Under Maryland law, it’s the state who holds a bond valued at 125% of the project, less the salvage value, which gets renewed every five years, according to Jennifer Keener, director of the county’s Department of Development Review and Permitting.

Keener also said the decommissioning part of a solar farm proposal doesn’t come early, like in the consultation phase, but later on, when it goes before the planning commission for a site plan review.

But, she’s been researching how other jurisdictions do it, and she’s collaborating with the county’s attorney Roscoe Leslie on how to approach this. The answer won’t come quickly, she noted.

 Bertino also wanted to know, in essence: could the county place a pause on a solar farm project until the law can be changed – giving us more of a hand in decommissioning?

If the county held a project’s decommissioning bond, Bertino said, “we would be a little bit more in control,” and be in a position to know first if a solar farm was going offline.

“I want to make sure the county is protected. What is necessary to make that happen?” he said.

County attorney Roscoe Leslie reminded Bertino and his peers that, in a solar consultation, it’s the county working in service of the solar developer.

State law also dictates that, here, it’s the county’s job to provide the feedback – for environmental review, for zoning, for how it aligns with the comprehensive plan – so the solar applicant can improve its final submission to county planners. The state also says counties can’t adopt zoning laws or regulations that would block solar development.

Ultimately, all solar farm applications wind up before the state’s Public Service Commission, or PSC, noted Leslie.

“At the end of the day,” Leslie told the commissioners, “we can’t stop the project from moving forward.”

Commissioner Bunting (District 6, Bishopville) said he recognizes that the commissioners have no power to make changes to any utility-scale solar project application.

“Us losing the authority to have control over these solar developments is a travesty. All they’re doing is eating good farmland up. It’s just a shame,” he said.

The commissioners demanded at Tuesday’s meeting, in a 6-0 decision, that planning and development staffers bring forward emergency legislation that would give them more of that say-so over the decommissioning process. Bunting abstained from the vote.

While the request was to deliver this ASAP, procedurally, it first has to go before the county’s planning commission for a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, because the commissioners are asking for a change to the county’s zoning code, according to Keener.

The commissioners also engaged in a consultation Tuesday with a separate solar project proposed for Carey Road, also from New Leaf Energy. While it wasn’t an approve-or-deny situation, the commissioners still voted 6-0 to oppose the project based on zoning concerns, again with Bunting abstaining.

Notably, Commissioner Joe Mitrecic (District 7, Ocean City) wrapped things up by asking project lead Drew Funk, in general, about the compensation New Leaf Energy offers landowners.

“What’s the average rental that you pay the farmer for the per acre?” asked Mitrecic.

“I’m not at liberty to share that,” Funk replied. “That’s confidential with our lease agreement with our landowner.”

Mitrecic replied,. “You can’t even give me an idea of an average?”

“No. No, I can’t,” Funk said.