62.6

Risk Grade

Poor

Richland earns C grade reflecting the structural land constraint of being SC's capital metro county; Fort Jackson military presence restricts significant portions, urban growth limits agricultural land, and high compliance (55) reflects CUP process with Fort Jackson compatibility review; the Eastover/Hopkins rural corridor remains viable, demonstrated by three approved projects, but options are structurally narrow

Assessment Snapshot

Population

415759

State Rank

#31

Compliance

55%

Trajectory

Moratorium Status

✓ No Active Moratorium

No specific moratorium information available.

Ordinance & Regulations

Setback Requirements

250 ft from residential structures; 150 ft from road ROW; 100 ft from property lines; Fort Jackson noise/flight buffer setbacks apply in eastern county; decommissioning bond required

Zoning Mechanism

CUP via Richland County Planning Commission; County Council final approval; Fort Jackson compatibility review for parcels within 5 miles of installation boundary; decommissioning bond standard

Acreage Caps

None established

Spacing Rules

Not specified

Size Restrictions

Large-scale (>20 MW) effectively limited to Eastover/Hopkins rural zones in SE county

Board Sentiment & Political Risk

Sentiment Analysis

Mixed

Basis for Assessment

Columbia metro county with structural land constraints; Fort Jackson dominates eastern county; state government and university community (USC, Benedict, Allen) generally support renewable energy; urban core has no viable utility-scale land; rural southeast fringe (Hopkins/Eastover) is the only practical zone; council approves viable projects but Fort Jackson compatibility issues and urban growth constrain options

Political Risk Factors

Stable-Increasing

Board Members

County Council Chair Overture Walker | D | Term 2024–2028 Council Member Joyce Dickerson | D | Term 2022–2026 Council Member Dalhi Myers | D | Term 2024–2028 Council Member Seth Rose | D | Term 2022–2026 Council Member Gwen Kennedy | D | Term 2024–2028

Grid, Utilities & State Context

Grid Operator

SERC-SE; Duke Energy Progress

Utilities

Duke Energy Progress, None (Duke Energy Progress serves entire county)

State Permitting Process

County zoning authority; no state solar preemption; special exception or conditional use permit typically required for utility-scale (>1 MW); decommissioning bond increasingly required

State Incentives

Federal ITC eligible; SC state income tax credit for solar (25% up to $35,000 for commercial); SC Energy Freedom Act net metering provisions

Development Activity

Active/Completed Projects

Hopkins Solar (~40 MW, 2020, Duke Energy Progress PPA, southeastern rural fringe); Eastover Solar (~50 MW, 2021); Blythewood Solar (~22 MW, 2023)

Denied/Withdrawn Projects

Northeast Richland Solar (35 MW, 2022, denied — Fort Jackson compatibility review triggered; JLUS buffer conflict)

Explore the Full Tracker

View risk assessments for all 3,100+ US counties, compare states, and download detailed ordinance data for your solar development pipeline.

Launch SolarRisk Tracker

Richland County County, SC — Solar Development Risk Assessment