Op-Ed: A Tale of Two Solar Cities By John Carroll

The benefits of solar energy are not under dispute. Not all solar projects, however, are created equal. Every project should be evaluated based on how, where, and who benefits. On Maryland’s Eastern Shore, two proposed solar futures now stand in sharp contrast: the Halo solar array proposed for Betterton, and the municipally-owned community solar array now moving forward in Chestertown.

One project asks a small town to set aside decades of land-use planning and accept an industrial-scale energy facility on land long understood to be reserved for residential growth. The other shows how a town can use solar power to lower costs, strengthen municipal finances, expand affordability, and keep the public interest at the center of clean-energy development.

That tension has intensified because Maryland’s approval system gives the state a central role in siting utility scale solar facilities. Through the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity process, the Public Service Commission has authority over electric generating stations. They must consider local concerns, but local zoning can be overridden for larger projects. This is called local pre-emption. During the 2024 Legislative Session in Annapolis, I, along with local elected officials statewide, fought local zoning pre-emption, to no avail. Recent state legislation has also moved to protect smaller distributed solar projects by limiting local governments’ ability to impose blanket prohibitions on renewable energy development. As a result, rural communities increasingly feel that decisions about farmland, housing growth, and local character are being made through a state energy process rather than ordinary local land-use review.

Betterton: The Wrong Project in the Wrong Place

I have submitted written testimony to the Maryland Public Service Commission opposing the proposed Halo solar array project in Betterton. My opposition is not opposition to renewable energy. It is opposition to a project that conflicts with the land-use, planning assumptions, and community needs that have shaped Betterton for decades.

As I stated in my testimony, I respectfully oppose the proposed Halo project because it conflicts with “the long-standing land use commitments applicable to the parcel, the legal and policy consequences of disregarding a recorded sub-division agreement, and the project’s inconsistency with decades of state, county, and municipal planning for this property and for the future of the Town of Betterton.”

The Betterton project concerns land that was subject to a 1988 sub-division agreement signed by the Mayor and Council and the Hoyt family, the landowners at that time. That agreement designated R3 residential development—not industrial or commercial solar generation. The parcel was to be zoned for dense attached residential housing, and that purpose mattered then just as it matters now.

Sub-division agreements are not casual understandings. They are recorded land-use instruments designed to guide future development, municipal services, infrastructure planning, and community growth. If such an agreement is to be changed, it should be changed openly, formally, and lawfully—not brushed aside because a new use has become financially attractive.

I am not a lawyer, but I am a locally elected official with over 14 years of experience in land-use and annexation issues, as well as a real estate professional with over 25 years of experience. I know that recorded land-use agreements cannot simply be ignored without formal amendments. There are legal processes that must be followed.

That is why the absence of a negotiated amendment is so important. In my testimony to the law judge for the Public Service Commission, I wrote that “no amendment to the 1988 Betterton sub-division agreement has been presented or agreed upon. Without such an amendment, approval of the proposed solar array would disregard the recorded expectations and commitments that have governed this parcel for decades.”

Approving the Halo project under these circumstances would do more than affect one property. It would create a troubling precedent for municipalities and counties throughout Maryland. If recorded sub-division agreements can be ignored without a formal amendment, towns and counties lose confidence in the very tools they use to plan orderly growth. Landowners, residents, and local governments deserve certainty that recorded commitments mean what they say.

The land also represents one of Betterton’s remaining opportunities for future housing. At a time when Maryland communities face an undeniable workforce housing shortage, converting land planned for residential use into an industrial-scale solar facility would “box in” the town and reduce its ability to provide affordable workforce housing. Betterton has adequate public facilities available to support new housing. That opportunity should not be casually surrendered.

We do not have to imagine what this kind of misplaced state-driven project can do. We can already see the disaster of a project that has been ramrodded into our county by the State of Maryland on Morgnec Road. That same boxed-in effect is exactly what will happen in Betterton if Halo is allowed to proceed: future growth areas will be cut off, long-term housing opportunities will be destroyed, and development pressure will be forced outward creating urban sprawl across our valuable farmland.

Chestertown: A Better Model for Local Solar

Chestertown offers a very different example. Its municipally owned dual-array solar project is not merely a private energy development placed in a community. It is a community-centered public investment designed to produce public value.

The project will include a 1.2-megawatt array serving municipal operations and a 1.0-megawatt community solar array serving local subscribers. Publicly available project information states that the town-owned dual array is expected to generate approximately $400,000 in annual savings for Chestertown and provide community solar participants with electricity bill savings of 10-20 percent.

That is the kind of solar policy communities should be pursuing. Chestertown’s project is structured to reduce taxpayer burdens by lowering the cost of municipal electricity. It is designed to create affordability by offering discounted power to residents, including benefits for low- and moderate-income households. And because the town owns the asset, the long-term value of the project remains tied to the public interest rather than being exported solely as private profit.

Chestertown’s approach is forward thinking because it aligns clean energy with local self-reliance. It treats solar not as something done to a town, but as something built by and for a town. The result is a project that can stabilize municipal energy costs, reduce pressure on taxpayers, create a new revenue-generating resource, and expand access to affordable clean electricity.

For perspective energy, utility, and fuel costs have risen over 50% in the last five years and are among the fastest-rising pressures on local government budgets, much like in our personal home budgets. Municipal– owned solar can act as a practical hedge against inflation, fuel volatility, and geopolitical conflict by locking in more predictable long-term energy costs. Lowering or eliminating these costs can help prevent future tax increases while creating new revenue streams for infrastructure, schools, and public safety. If solar development is coming to our communities without meaningful local authority over placement, then residents—not billionaires or corporations—should receive the benefit. It is the fiduciary duty of local government to promote affordability, and bold investments in alternative energy are one of the tools available to protect taxpayers and strengthen community resilience.

This is also a matter of basic fiscal responsibility. Local governments cannot continue to rely on higher property taxes, fees, and assessments every time operating costs rise.

Responsible public finance requires elected officials to look for assets and strategies that reduce recurring expenses and generate new revenue instead of simply passing higher costs on to residents. Municipal solar does exactly that: it turns a rising expense into a productive public asset, helping towns control utility and fuel costs, protect taxpayers from inflation, and build a more independent local energy future.

Another advantage local governments have over individual households is the ability to use aggregate net metering. This allows a municipality or county to combine multiple electric accounts under one umbrella so the solar energy produced by a town-owned array can be credited across all its Delmarva Power accounts. In practice, that means a municipal solar project can reduce electric bills across town facilities rather than only at one meter, while excess production and solar renewable energy credits can be monetized to create a new, long-term revenue stream for the town. As a former mayor, I know how important it is to reduce costs and create new revenue without raising taxes or fees. In Galena, the solar array that I installed on Town Hall, which was100% grant-funded through the Maryland Department of Energy, has saved the town tens of thousands of dollars over the last decade while creating an additional revenue stream and lowering the burden on taxpayers. That firsthand experience is why I believe Chestertown’s project can work: I have seen this model deliver real savings, real revenue, and real public benefit.

The Difference Is Public Benefit

The contrast between Betterton and Chestertown is not a contrast between being for solar and being against solar. It is a contrast between two models of development.

In Betterton, the Halo proposal would place a solar facility on land that has long been tied to residential planning and recorded land-use expectations. It raises serious questions about municipal authority, subdivision agreements, future housing, and whether a town’s long-term plans can be overridden without a proper amendment process.

In Chestertown, the solar project advances clean energy while strengthening the town’s finances and directly benefiting residents. It is municipal ownership in service of affordability, fiscal responsibility, and energy independence. It is renewable energy connected to community resilience, and it is a practical example of how local governments can reduce rising fuel and utility costs, generate new revenue, and avoid solving every budget challenge through higher taxes or fees.

Maryland needs more clean energy. But clean energy projects should respect local planning, recorded agreements, housing needs, and community priorities. Solar should not become an excuse to disregard the promises towns made in their land records or the planning investments taxpayers have already funded.

The Public Service Commission should deny the Halo Betterton proposal. At minimum, the commission should require the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed use is consistent with the 1988 sub-division agreement through a negotiated amendment, all applicable zoning and land-use commitments, and the long-term planning objectives of Betterton, Kent County, and the State of Maryland.

At the same time, Chestertown’s groundbreaking deserves praise. It shows that when local governments lead with vision, transparency, and public purpose, solar power can become more than a source of electricity. It can become a fiscally responsible tool for affordability, revenue generation, taxpayer protection, energy independence, community benefit, and long-term local prosperity.

More work must also be done to prioritize solar in public places and already-developed areas. This can include parking lots, government buildings, school buildings, brownfields, wastewater treatment plants, and other sites where clean energy can be produced without sacrificing valuable farmland. Energy independence is important, but we should not achieve it by trading away the land that supports our farms, our food supply, and the rural character of our communities.

That is the tale of two solar cities. One asks a community to accept a project that conflicts with its planning future. The other invites a community to share the benefits of a clean- energy future. Maryland should know the difference—and choose wisely.

Over the past few months, I have embarked on a listening journey, discussing a range of issues with local thought leaders across a broad political and ideological spectrum. I plan to continue those conversations through additional postings focused on these issues and potential solutions. You do not have to agree with me on this issue, or on every issue. I welcome feedback, comments, and requests for meetings. I only ask that, in the coming months, we remain civil with one another as we discuss Kent County’s path forward and work toward meaningful, thoughtful solutions to the issues at hand. To learn more about my vision for Kent County or to connect with me please visit: www.carrollforkent.com