North Carolina Considers Additional Statewide Permitting Requirement for Solar Farms

02 February 2016 Renewable Energy Outlook Blog

North Carolina has been a hotbed of activity for residential and utility scale solar developers. According to the Solar Energy Industry Association, the Tar Heel State ranks fourth in the country in terms of installed solar capacity (1,088 MW). However, the North Carolina Energy Policy Council (EPC)—an advisory body within the state’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)—is considering a new permitting requirement that could significantly impact the future pace of solar development in the state. The proposal comes on the heels of Congress’ decision to extend the investment tax credit for renewable energy projects, which will likely lead to a boom in solar project development.

At its January 27 meeting, the EPC considered a proposal that would require solar developers to obtain a permit from the state before constructing and operating a new solar farm. Although details are scant, it appears that this proposal would give the state siting authority over new solar installations. At this time, there is no information about the criteria the state would apply when deciding whether to issue a permit; however, this proposal could give the state substantial discretion over the development of new solar facilities.

For this reason, the proposal represents a significant departure from existing permitting practices in North Carolina. Under the current regime, municipalities control the siting of solar facilities through their municipal zoning codes. The municipality establishes certain geographic areas where developers can build solar farms, either upon the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP) or “as-of-right” (i.e., without a permit). Depending on the size and scope of the solar farm, the developer may have to apply to the state for other permits (e.g., a certificate of public convenience and necessity or a stormwater permit). Moreover, the Department of Administration’s Environmental Review Clearinghouse provides state agencies with the opportunity to review and comment on the potential environmental impacts of a given solar project. However, at this point, the state does not control facility siting per se.

Advocates of the new permitting requirement claim that it is needed because small municipalities do not have the time or resources to “adequately judge the outcomes and the long-term impacts of these solar facilities.” They see the statewide permitting requirement as necessary to provide additional oversight of solar installations. One industry stakeholder said that “there is a forum for looking at best practices around permitting,” but that the industry should be consulted before anything is set in stone.

The EPC did not hold a formal vote on the statewide permitting proposal, but plans to discuss it again at its next meeting in March. Solar developers may want to keep track of this issue; if the state decides to act on the EPC’s proposal, it could present an additional regulatory hurdle to developing solar projects in North Carolina.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.