Community solar was supposed to democratize clean energy — letting families save money, supporting the grid, and sharing the benefits of renewable power. But in practice, Maryland’s community solar program has become a case study in inequality. Developers capture millions in guaranteed revenue and subsidies, while residents and rural counties are left with crumbs and locked-up land.
Look at the math. A typical 5-megawatt solar farm produces about 8,000 megawatt-hours per year. That’s worth nearly a million dollars in utility bill credits, plus another half-million or more from Maryland’s renewable energy credits. Add in federal tax subsidies that cover up to 60% of upfront costs, and the developer is pocketing $1.3–$1.5 million every single year with little risk.
Now compare that to the “benefit” for households. Maryland law guarantees a 10% discount for most subscribers and 20% for low- and moderate-income households. That translates into about $100 a year for non-LMI families and $200 for LMI families. Across all 700-plus households in a project, total customer savings amount to maybe $100,000 to $150,000 annually. The developer captures ten times that.
The inequality doesn’t stop there. Risk is pushed onto families. Subscribe to too much solar and unused credits are cashed out at pennies on the dollar. Subscribe to too little and you pay full price for the rest of your power. Developers get steady payments either way.
Fixed charges keep rising. Community solar discounts apply only to the supply portion of the bill. Delivery, infrastructure, and taxes keep climbing, untouched.
Households never feel real relief, even if they technically get a discount.
Rural counties carry the burden. Projects are overwhelmingly sited on cheap farmland and employment-zoned land. Once fenced and leased for 20–30 years, these sites produce no jobs, no housing, no agricultural output — just industrial power exported to the PJM grid. Rural landscapes are sacrificed so developers can chase tax credits and SREC revenue.
Kent County, along with other rural counties, is being asked to carry this burden right now. Halo, Turning Point Energy, and other developers are lining up projects on our farmland, on employment-zoned properties, and — in the case of Betterton — blocking emergency helicopter service and consuming the town’s only viable parcel for new housing stock. Altogether, five Community Solar projects are lined up at the Public Service Commission right now awaiting CPCN approvals, while a smaller project sits before the Kent County Planning Department. This of course does not include the utility scale solar energy generation plant, Morgnec Road Solar, already approved and scaring the land.
On paper, community solar lets legislators in Annapolis claim progress on climate, equity, and on reaching Maryland’s renewable energy goals. They have chosen a pathway, and instead of analyzing and admitting that perhaps their intent was good, but their chosen approach needs correction, they are sticking to the plan. Meanwhile, as energy prices in Maryland continue to climb, developers get their subsidies and make millions for their investors, politicians get their green talking points, and rural Maryland pays the price.
That is the real inequality. Not just the one between developers and households, but the deeper inequality between the legislative agenda in Annapolis and the rural communities being asked to carry its burden.
Fred W. J. Kirchner, Tolchester says
there seems to be no mention of the many other hazards assocuiated with a natural disaster that may smash the panels. Such as falling apace debris, a blinded helicopter or crop duster crashing or one of the many air traffic people, Aberdeen choppers, MSP choppers, A-10s all flying over Kent County.. Also the threat of natural disasters, tornadoes, huricanes, flying trees and cars etc. If the panels are smashed there will be a release of the micro dust of crystalized silicon or alternative equally cancer causing airborn dust for miles. This dust will cause a long term event called Silicosis, that will probably exceed the results of asbestoes with the many lives lost to asbestosis! Critical area laws were born from the long term tradgey that took place in Love Canal in NY State in the 70’s. Many lives lost, and still today the enviornment is being threatened by such senseless political ripoffs of false information.. These technologies are supported by many corporate stockholders tgo reap the great profits and most are our own legislators who “approve” of the ideas in OUR backyards, (not theirs). This all needs to be stopped NOW and the panels removed while there is a responsible company who installed them to take them down.. They cannot put them into the “dumps” they are as hazardous as asbestoes and their demolition needs to be supervised as asbestoes is also. Enough said, but it will not be me to suffer, it will be my children and grandchildren.. HALO Betterton will represednt the halos over the heads of the future generations obliterated from the planet.. But for years this discussion, as the LOVE CANAL issues was “NOT FOR DISCUSSION” !
Kathryn Klvana says
This hits the nail on the head. These are not do-gooder environmentalists coming to help our community. They might as well be called Hedge Fund Solar. Protecting Maryland’s environment shouldn’t be an excuse to ruin our local environment. The plan the author posted is of the Halo Betterton proposal, which would put 15,000 solar panels on the gateway road to our historic town, smack in the middle of a residential community. If you are as outraged as I am, make your voice heard at the Public Service Commission hearing on Tuesday, Sept 9th. Sign up by Sept 8th here: http://www.psc.state.md.us/
MJ Veverka says
Another flaw in the Community Solar program is how the consumer is charged for the solar kWh generated. My western shore contract is pegged to the utility kWh rate so that it increases as utility rates increase. I’m now putting panels on my roof to displace a contract that has seen my solar rate increase over 50% since I first signed on. Thankfully, I didn’t subscribe on the eastern shore which had an even more punitive set of contract terms.
FRED W.J. KIRCHNER says
Carefull !
people who put panels on thier roofs are building a “supply and demand” issue with the utility companies. If a utility company calculated an account receivable, say for 100,000 kwh a month, and the consumer uses personal solar panels to reduce their bull to, say 50,000 kwh, then the utility companies, due to costs incurred to deliver an average of 100,000 kwh to their customers is LOST, then they will RAISE the basic rates to offset the costs.. The consimer will loose again. When will people understand the real meaning of conservatism is; “NOTHING IS FREE” !! I have been here for over 45 years and the first scam was to replace the meter reader fee with a replica cost of delivery. Now they don’t even have meter readers, a remote machine does it. There is one benefit though, if the electric is lost to your meter, instantly a serviceman will be dispatched to investigate. Again personal solar panels on your roof will usually void the warrantee on the roof, and your insurance company may not cover it, especially if you have a mnortgage.. Check with them first.. Another major expense to the user that only the solar sales company walk away rich !
Janet Christensen-Lewis says
The Maryland People’s Counsel has warned repeatedly about hidden or opaque costs buried in the supply portion of utility bills. Community solar adds to that problem. REC (renewable energy credits) compliance costs are already folded into every customer’s supply rate, inflating the base price of electricity. Then developers sell those same RECs for profit while collecting subscriber payments. The “discounted rate” for households is in fact built on hidden charges that ratepayers are already funding.
Mark Mendez says
The writer’s points are painfully on target. Idyllic benefits pitched and accepted without the details questioned. This is a one sided deal and small towns are paying the price.
The townspeople of Betterton reject the Halo project in this location. A short 3 minute video provides important visual context for your readers:
https://youtu.be/KvCUWJEpU2k?si=FKi9iSSUuqKeAQsd
Leonor Chaves says
The size and scope of the Halo Solar project in the small town of Betterton is a gargantuan monstrosity that will impact the community and the bay for decades to come. There are several environmental concerns with the placement of 15 thousand 15 foot panels on a field within a historic residential community.
It is the wrong project at the wrong location. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I could not agree more.
Please say NO to Halo.
Cara Humphrey says
I appreciate the author’s concern for rural communities, but as someone working in this industry, I must correct several significant factual errors that undermine this important discussion.
Missing the Real Costs
The letter’s financial analysis omits the crucial reality: a typical 5MW community solar project requires $4.5-6.5 million in construction costs alone, plus interconnection fees, permitting, and 20+ years of operational expenses. Add subscriber acquisition costs ($80-$110 per kW) and ongoing billing management ($0.08 per kWh), and the economics look dramatically different than portrayed.
Outdated Federal Incentive Information
The “60% federal subsidies” claim is incorrect. The 30% Investment Tax Credit expires December 31, 2025 for residential projects, and commercial projects must begin construction by July 4, 2026—hardly the guaranteed windfall described.
Misunderstanding How Community Solar Works
Several key errors: Subscribers don’t choose their allocation size—it’s professionally calculated based on usage. Unused credits are banked for winter months, not “cashed out at pennies.” And community solar credits apply to entire electricity bills, not just supply charges.
Clean Energy Has Value
The claim that projects produce “no jobs…just industrial power” contradicts itself. These projects produce clean energy—exactly what we need to combat climate change while providing land lease payments, construction jobs, and property tax revenue to rural communities.
A Path Forward
At Neighborhood Sun, our Cambridge project prioritizes local community outreach over distant subscribers. Rather than abandoning community solar due to misunderstood economics, let’s work together to strengthen programs ensuring rural Maryland benefits meaningfully from hosting clean energy projects.
The climate crisis demands we get this right, but so does basic fairness to host communities.
James Dissette says
Due to a system glitch, I am posting this response sent from Janet Christensen:
I appreciate Cara’s sincerity in defending community solar and as the CRO of Neighborhood Sun, she gives a strong, polished industry reply — but there are places where it glosses over real issues, introduces half-truths, or misframes the original concerns about community solar.
Economics & Subsidies:
A 5-MW project may cost $5–6 million to build, but it produces $1.2 million or more in bill credits and REC sales every year for 20-30 years. Federal law guarantees the returns: projects that begin construction by July 4, 2026, and are placed in service by December 31, 2027, qualify for the new ITC or PTC. Developers stack bonuses — 10% for domestic content, 10% for energy community siting, and 20% for LMI allocation — reaching up to 70% of project costs subsidized. These subsidies are not outdated; they are the business model. The CRO points to O&M and subscriber acquisition as if they erase margins. In reality, the industry standard (NREL, Lazard reports) O&M for a 5 MW project runs about $60–$100k per year — less than 10% of annual revenues. Subscriber acquisition is a one-time marketing expense, typically recouped in the first year. These costs are trivial compared to the millions in guaranteed subsidies and long-term bill credit revenues that make community solar such an attractive investment.
Who Really Benefits:
In 2022–2023 proceedings on expanding community solar, OPC explicitly said: “Customers face rising bills from cost recovery mechanisms buried in the supply portion of bills.” (PSC Case No. 9619, comments on community solar expansion). The PSC explains that bill credits “will vary depending on your subscription contract” and may be applied as reduced usage or as a dollar credit. In practice, utilities like DPL apply credits only to the supply portion of bills, not the full amount. Families still pay full distribution, transmission, riders, and taxes. If credits were applied to the entire bill, households would face less risk of over-subscription and wasted credits. But because they don’t, families carry the risk while developers still collect guaranteed revenue. The CRO also says unused credits are “banked.” That’s true in the short term, but at the end of each 12-month cycle, any leftover credits are paid out only at the utility’s avoided-cost rate — just a few cents per kWh, Community solar is not a hedge against rising rates. Credits are tied to the utility’s supply price, so when rates increase, subscribers still pay more — just slightly less than non-subscribers. . In practice, rising utility rates are a direct financial benefit to solar developers, even though they’re a burden to subscribers.
Local Impact:
Construction jobs are short-term, and tax revenue from a fenced solar field is a fraction of what housing or active businesses would provide. Some projects lease land, others buy it outright, which means no ongoing local income. And every acre converted to panels is farmland lost — land that could support crops, agricultural jobs, and the rural economy. Calling electrons “community value” ignores the real cost: rural towns lose growth opportunities and farmland while investors collect guaranteed federal returns.
Community solar should not mean rural Maryland shoulders the burden while the benefits flow elsewhere. That inequality is real — and as I stated it is by design.