IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION * BEFORE THE OF PERENNIAL SOLAR, LLC FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE * OF MARYLAND AND NECESSITY TO CONSTRUCT AN 8.0 MW SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC GENER- * ATING FACILITY IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND * CASE NO. 9408 PROPOSED ORDER OF PUBLIC UTILITY LAW JUDGE Before: Ryan C. McLean Chief Public Utility Law Judge Issued: April 21, 2021 Table of Contents Appearances ............................................................................................................................ iv I. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1 II. Procedural History ............................................................................................................ 2 III. Parties’ Positions............................................................................................................. 10 A. Perennial ................................................................................................................... 10 B. PPRP ......................................................................................................................... 17 1. Project Description and Overview ....................................................................... 17 2. Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 18 3. Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Issues ......................................................... 23 4. Land Use .............................................................................................................. 24 5. Visual Quality ...................................................................................................... 24 6. Transportation ...................................................................................................... 29 7. Cultural and Aesthetic Resources ........................................................................ 31 8. Public Services and Safety ................................................................................... 32 9. Property Values .................................................................................................... 33 10. Noise Impact Assessment .................................................................................... 33 11. Electromagnetic Field Impact Assessment .......................................................... 34 12. Decommissioning ................................................................................................. 35 C. The County ............................................................................................................... 36 D. The Neighbors .......................................................................................................... 40 E. Staff .......................................................................................................................... 45 F. Applicant’s Rebuttal ................................................................................................. 47 G. PPRP’s Rebuttal ....................................................................................................... 54 H. Staff’s Rebuttal ......................................................................................................... 57 I. PPRP’s Supplemental Testimony ............................................................................. 58 J. Neighbors’ Supplemental Testimony ....................................................................... 59 K. Applicant’s Supplemental Rebuttal Testimony ........................................................ 59 L. Second Evidentiary Hearing ..................................................................................... 60 M. Public Comments ...................................................................................................... 61 1. Verbal Comments................................................................................................. 61 2. Written Comments ............................................................................................... 65 N. Briefs ........................................................................................................................ 67 1. Perennial ............................................................................................................... 67 2. The County ........................................................................................................... 70 3. The Neighbors ...................................................................................................... 70 4. Staff ...................................................................................................................... 73 O. Reply Briefs .............................................................................................................. 74 1. Perennial ............................................................................................................... 74 2. PPRP .................................................................................................................... 76 3. Neighbors ............................................................................................................. 78 4. The County ........................................................................................................... 80 5. Staff ...................................................................................................................... 80 IV. Applicable Law ............................................................................................................... 82 ii V. Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 83 A. PUA § 7-207 Factors ................................................................................................ 83 1. PUA § 7-207(e)(1) – Recommendation of the County ........................................ 83 2. PUA § 7-207(e)(2)(i) – Stability and Reliability of the Electric System ............. 84 3. PUA § 7-207(e)(2)(ii) – Economics ..................................................................... 85 4. PUA § 7-207(e)(2)(iii) – Esthetics ....................................................................... 86 5. PUA § 7-207(e)(2)(iv) – Historic Sites ................................................................ 89 6. PUA § 7-207(e)(2)(v) – Aviation Safety ............................................................. 92 7. PUA § 7-207(e)(2)(vi) – Air and Water Pollution ............................................... 92 8. PUA § 7-207(e)(2)(vii) – Disposal of Waste ....................................................... 93 9. PUA § 7-207(e)(3)(i) – Consistency with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ........................................................................................................... 93 a. The Comprehensive Plan .................................................................................. 93 b. Zoning ............................................................................................................... 95 10. PUA § 7-207(e)(3(ii) – Efforts to Resolve Issues Presented by the County ........ 96 B. Other Considerations ................................................................................................ 97 1. RPS Contribution ................................................................................................. 97 2. Proposed Amended License Condition 19 – Land Use ....................................... 97 3. Electro-magnetic Field ......................................................................................... 99 C. Public Comments ...................................................................................................... 99 VI. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 100 iii Appearances Carolyn Elefant, Esquire, and Alexander English, Esquire, for Perennial Solar, LLC. Sondra Simpson McLemore, Esquire, and Steven M. Talson, Esquire, for the Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program. Michael A. Dean, Esquire, and Lloyd J. Spivak, Esquire, for the Technical Staff of the Public Service Commission of Maryland. Joseph G. Cleaver, Esquire, on behalf of the Office of Maryland People's Counsel. Kirk C. Downey, Esquire and B. Andrew Bright, Esquire, for Washington County. William C. Wantz, Esquire, on behalf of Lori and Keith Robinson, Samuel and Judith Fiery, Daris and Ron Kendle, Hilda Canfield, Kendra and Rick Reese, Trudy and Lynn Keller, Betty Wasson, Debra and Jeff Kendall, and Mary Lou and Brent Feight. iv I. Executive Summary 1. On December 15, 2015, Perennial Solar, LLC’s (“Perennial” or “the Applicant”) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) to construct an 8.0 megawatt (“MW”) solar photovoltaic generating facility (“the Project”) in Washington County, Maryland (“the Application”). However, due to a lengthy appeal process stemming from a Washington County Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) decision, evidentiary hearings were not concluded until January 4, 2021. Over the six-year period between Perennial filing its application and the conclusion of the evidentiary hearings, CPCN cases have become increasingly contentious. Statutory changes have been made requiring due consideration be