The Most Permitting-Friendly Counties for Utility-Scale Solar
A low permitting risk score means the regulatory environment is favorable — not that approval is guaranteed. The counties at the top of this list have permissive ordinances, clean approval histories, and trajectories that aren't tightening. That's a meaningful head start. It's not the whole story: grid interconnection, land availability, community relationships, and project economics all matter independently of what SitePath measures. But it's a real and documentable advantage at the ordinance level.
held by Colorado
in the top 50
improving trajectory
states
What these counties have in common
Colorado's eastern plains dominate the top of the list. Cheyenne, Kiowa, Baca, and Kit Carson counties hold the top four spots nationally, all with scores below 15. These are sparsely populated agricultural counties on the high plains where solar development generates property tax revenue and landowner lease income with minimal competing land uses. The state's favorable RPS framework (100% clean electricity by 2040) adds a supportive backdrop, but local boards in these counties were permissive before the state mandate.
Texas is the other anchor. 30 of the top 50 are Texas counties. This is the counterintuitive result that surprises most developers: Texas has no RPS mandate and an energy policy apparatus that is broadly hostile to renewable portfolio standards — yet its counties are among the most permissive in the country for solar. The mechanism is economics, not politics: solar projects deliver significant property tax revenue in counties with otherwise limited commercial bases, and agricultural landowners have embraced lease income. Local boards follow local incentives.
The hostile-tier pattern. 36 of the 50 counties here sit in states with hostile RPS policy. That's not noise — it's a systematic signal that state policy tier is a poor proxy for local permitting outcomes. Where local economics favor solar, local boards approve it regardless of what the governor's office signals.
Top 50 lowest-risk counties
Sorted by risk score (lowest = most permissive). Excludes counties with active moratoria. Click any county for its full profile.
| # | County | State | Grade | Score | Trajectory | Saturation | State policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cheyenne | CO | A | 12.9 | ↑ Improving | Very Low | Favorable |
| 2 | Kiowa | CO | A | 12.9 | — Stable | Very Low | Favorable |
| 3 | Baca | CO | A | 14.0 | ↑ Improving | Very Low | Favorable |
| 4 | Kit Carson | CO | A | 14.0 | ↑ Improving | Very Low | Favorable |
| 5 | Brewster | TX | A | 14.4 | ↑ Improving | Low | Hostile |
| 6 | Charlottesville | VA | A | 14.4 | ↓ Declining | Low | Favorable |
| 7 | Zapata | TX | A | 15.6 | ↑ Improving | Low | Hostile |
| 8 | Teton | ID | A | 16.2 | ↓ Declining | Low | Hostile |
| 9 | Blaine | ID | A | 16.4 | — Stable | Moderate | Hostile |
| 10 | Pecos | TX | A | 16.7 | ↑ Improving | Low/Moderate | Hostile |
| 11 | Sherman | TX | A | 16.7 | ↑ Improving | Low/Moderate | Hostile |
| 12 | Armstrong | TX | A | 17.7 | ↑ Improving | Low | Hostile |
| 13 | Atascosa | TX | A | 17.7 | ↑ Improving | Low | Hostile |
| 14 | Borden | TX | A | 17.7 | ↑ Improving | Low | Hostile |
| 15 | Reagan | TX | A | 17.7 | ↑ Improving | Low/Moderate | Hostile |
| 16 | Victoria | TX | A | 17.9 | ↑ Improving | Low/Moderate | Hostile |
| 17 | Imperial | CA | A | 18.0 | ↓ Declining | Moderate | Favorable |
| 18 | Bastrop | TX | A | 19.0 | ↑ Improving | Moderate-Low | Hostile |
| 19 | Brown | TX | A | 19.0 | — Stable | Moderate-Low | Hostile |
| 20 | Calhoun | TX | A | 19.0 | ↓ Declining | Moderate-Low | Hostile |
| 21 | Callahan | TX | A | 19.0 | ↑ Improving | Moderate-Low | Hostile |
| 22 | Potter | TX | A | 19.0 | ↑ Improving | Moderate | Hostile |
| 23 | Reeves | TX | A | 19.0 | ↑ Improving | Moderate | Hostile |
| 24 | Scurry | TX | A | 19.0 | ↑ Improving | Moderate | Hostile |
| 25 | Starr | TX | A | 19.0 | ↑ Improving | Moderate | Hostile |
| 26 | Brazos | TX | A | 20.2 | — Stable | Moderate-Low | Hostile |
| 27 | Cameron | TX | A | 20.2 | ↑ Improving | Moderate-Low | Hostile |
| 28 | Coleman | TX | A | 20.2 | ↑ Improving | Moderate-Low | Hostile |
| 29 | Palo Pinto | TX | A | 20.2 | ↑ Improving | Low/Moderate | Hostile |
| 30 | Hudspeth | TX | A | 20.4 | ↑ Improving | Low | Hostile |
| 31 | Costilla | CO | A | 20.4 | ↓ Declining | Very Low | Favorable |
| 32 | Conejos | CO | A | 20.8 | ↑ Improving | Very Low | Favorable |
| 33 | Bexar | TX | A | 21.3 | ↑ Improving | Moderate | Hostile |
| 34 | Brazoria | TX | A | 21.3 | ↑ Improving | Moderate | Hostile |
| 35 | Childress | TX | A | 21.3 | ↑ Improving | Moderate | Hostile |
| 36 | Travis | TX | A | 21.3 | ↑ Improving | Moderate | Hostile |
| 37 | Upton | TX | A | 21.3 | ↑ Improving | Moderate | Hostile |
| 38 | Webb | TX | A | 21.3 | ↑ Improving | Moderate | Hostile |
| 39 | Hardee | FL | A | 21.3 | ↑ Improving | Moderate (active pipeline) | Hostile |
| 40 | Hendry | FL | A | 21.3 | ↑ Improving | Moderate (active pipeline) | Hostile |
| 41 | Osceola | FL | A | 21.3 | ↑ Improving | Moderate (active FPL pipeline in southern Osceola; large agricultural land base in Yeehaw Junction corridor; solar development hub for central FL) | Hostile |
| 42 | Irion | TX | A | 21.6 | ↑ Improving | Low | Hostile |
| 43 | Winkler | TX | A | 21.6 | ↑ Improving | Low | Hostile |
| 44 | Richmond City | VA | A | 21.6 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 45 | Alexandria | VA | A | 22.1 | ↑ Improving | Low | Favorable |
| 46 | Fairfax City | VA | A | 22.1 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 47 | Falls Church | VA | A | 22.1 | ↑ Improving | Low | Favorable |
| 48 | Manassas Park | VA | A | 22.1 | ↓ Declining | Low | Favorable |
| 49 | Yuma | CO | A | 22.2 | ↑ Improving | Very Low | Favorable |
| 50 | Latah | ID | A | 22.2 | ↑ Improving | Low | Hostile |
Saturation reflects estimated installed solar capacity relative to available land. State policy is the RPS framework tier — Favorable, Neutral, Mixed, or Hostile — and is context only, not a scoring input. A low score in a hostile-tier state is valid data, not a data error.
Limitations of this ranking
SitePath scores ordinance risk — the regulatory barrier layer. A county that scores well here may still present project challenges that don't show up in permitting data: constrained interconnection queues, sensitive land classifications (prime farmland, floodplain, habitat), community opposition that precedes a formal ordinance response, or utility procurement timelines that don't align with development. The county profile pages include site constraint flags and trajectory signals that provide additional context beyond the composite score.