SitePathInsights › Most Permitting-Friendly Counties
SitePath Research · Updated August 27, 2026

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.

Top 50 of 3,143 counties scored · Moratorium counties excluded
6
Top-10 counties
in CO
21
Texas counties
in the top 50
35
Counties with
improving trajectory
5
In hostile-tier
states

What the top of the list tells you

Colorado leads the national ranking. Cheyenne County, CO sits at #1 with a risk score of 15.1. 6 of the top 10 counties are in Colorado. These are typically sparse agricultural counties where solar development delivers meaningful property tax revenue and landowner lease income with no organized constituency to oppose it. Local boards in these counties were permissive before any state solar policy existed.

Texas is the other anchor. 21 of the top 50 are Texas counties — the counterintuitive result that surprises developers who filter by state RPS tier. Texas's renewable portfolio standard was a capacity target, met back in 2009; it carries no ongoing mandate. Yet its counties are among the most permissive in the country. The mechanism is local economics: solar delivers property tax revenue into counties with limited commercial bases, and agricultural landowners have embraced lease income. State policy doesn't predict local outcomes when local incentives point the other way.

The hostile-tier signal. 5 of the 50 counties here sit in states SitePath classifies as hostile-tier on RPS policy. That's the same mechanism at work: local economics override state-level political framing. Where a project delivers enough property tax and lease income, the county board approves it regardless of what the governor's office signals.

How to use this list

The score measures ordinance risk — the regulatory barrier at the county level. A county that ranks well here has permissive rules, a clean approval history, and a trajectory that isn't tightening. That's a real, documentable head start for site selection and landowner outreach. It's not the whole story: grid interconnection, land availability, community relationships, and project economics all matter independently. But ordinance risk is the one factor you can research before spending anything on a site, and this list tells you where that barrier is lowest.

Top 50 lowest-risk counties

Sorted by risk score (lowest = most permissive). Excludes counties with active moratoria. Click any county for its full profile.

Trajectory: ↑ Improving   ↓ Declining   — Stable
#CountyStateGradeScoreTrajectorySaturationState policy
1 Cheyenne CO A 15.1 ↑ Improving Low Favorable
2 Kit Carson CO A 15.3 ↑ Improving Low Favorable
3 Baca CO A 15.8 — Stable Low Favorable
4 Blaine ID A 18.7 — Stable Low Hostile
5 Teton ID A 19.3 ↓ Declining Low Hostile
6 Reagan TX A 20.4 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
7 Yuma CO A 20.8 ↑ Improving Low Favorable
8 Washington CO A 20.8 ↑ Improving Low Favorable
9 Costilla CO A 21.4 ↓ Declining Low Favorable
10 Coleman TX A 21.6 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
11 Lincoln CO A 21.6 ↑ Improving Low Favorable
12 Phillips CO A 21.7 ↓ Declining Low Favorable
13 Atascosa TX A 22.0 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
14 Hidalgo TX A 22.1 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
15 Palo Pinto TX A 22.4 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
16 Sherman TX A 22.4 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
17 Brewster TX A 22.4 — Stable Low Neutral
18 Glenn CA A 22.5 ↑ Improving Low Favorable
19 Sedgwick CO A 22.7 — Stable Low Favorable
20 Glasscock TX A 23.0 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
21 Brazos TX A 23.1 — Stable Low Neutral
22 Armstrong TX A 23.2 — Stable Low Neutral
23 Hudspeth TX A 23.3 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
24 Irion TX A 23.3 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
25 Lipscomb TX A 23.3 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
26 Lynn TX A 23.3 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
27 Colusa CA A 23.3 ↑ Improving Low Favorable
28 Palm Beach FL A 23.5 ↓ Declining Moderate Hostile
29 Kiowa CO A 23.6 ↓ Declining Low Favorable
30 Conejos CO A 23.6 ↑ Improving Moderate Favorable
31 Charlottesville VA A 23.7 ↓ Declining High Favorable
32 Cameron TX A 24.1 ↑ Improving Moderate Neutral
33 Thurston WA A 24.2 ↑ Improving Low Favorable
34 Howard TX A 24.7 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
35 Zapata TX A 24.7 ↑ Improving Moderate Neutral
36 Latah ID A 25.0 ↑ Improving Low Hostile
37 Fairfax City VA A 25.0 ↓ Declining Low Favorable
38 Dallam TX A 25.5 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
39 Nolan TX A 25.7 ↑ Improving High Neutral
40 Washington UT A 25.8 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
41 Davis UT A 25.9 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
42 Jefferson MT A 25.9 — Stable Low Neutral
43 Broadwater MT A 25.9 — Stable Low Neutral
44 Kent MI A 25.9 ↑ Improving Low Favorable
45 Ward TX A 26.0 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
46 Pershing NV A 26.6 ↑ Improving High Favorable
47 Hardee FL A 26.9 ↑ Improving High Hostile
48 Scott IA A 26.9 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
49 Karnes TX A 26.9 ↑ Improving Low Neutral
50 Catron NM A 27.0 ↑ Improving Low Favorable

Saturation reflects estimated installed solar capacity relative to available land. State policy is the RPS framework tier — Favorable, Neutral, Mixed, or Hostile — a modest 10% input in the score; local opposition and ordinances weigh much more. A low score in a hostile-tier state is valid data, not a data error.

What this ranking doesn't measure

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.

Full scoring methodology →