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.
in CO
are Texas counties
trajectory
states
What the top of the list tells you
Colorado leads the national ranking. Kit Carson County, CO sits at #1 with a risk score of 15.3. About half of the top ten 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. A sizeable minority 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. A handful of the counties on this list 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.
| # | County | State | Grade | Score | Trajectory | Saturation | State policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kit Carson | CO | A | 15.3 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 2 | Baca | CO | A | 15.8 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 3 | Cheyenne | CO | A | 17.1 | — Stable | Moderate | Favorable |
| 4 | Blaine | ID | A | 18.7 | — Stable | Low | Hostile |
| 5 | Teton | ID | A | 19.3 | — Stable | Low | Hostile |
| 6 | Washington | CO | A | 19.3 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 7 | Coleman | TX | A | 20.1 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 8 | Reagan | TX | A | 20.4 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 9 | Atascosa | TX | A | 20.5 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 10 | Kiowa | CO | A | 20.6 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 11 | Yuma | CO | A | 21.2 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 12 | Lincoln | CO | A | 21.6 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 13 | Hidalgo | TX | A | 22.1 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 14 | Phillips | CO | A | 22.4 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 15 | Brewster | TX | A | 22.4 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 16 | Palo Pinto | TX | A | 22.4 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 17 | Sherman | TX | A | 22.4 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 18 | Sedgwick | CO | A | 22.7 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 19 | Thurston | WA | A | 22.7 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 20 | Brazos | TX | A | 23.1 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 21 | Armstrong | TX | A | 23.2 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 22 | Hudspeth | TX | A | 23.3 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 23 | Irion | TX | A | 23.3 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 24 | Lynn | TX | A | 23.3 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 25 | Lipscomb | TX | A | 23.3 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 26 | Colusa | CA | A | 23.3 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 27 | Conejos | CO | A | 23.6 | — Stable | Moderate | Favorable |
| 28 | Charlottesville | VA | A | 23.7 | — Stable | High | Favorable |
| 29 | Washington | TX | A | 24.4 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 30 | Zapata | TX | A | 24.7 | — Stable | Moderate | Neutral |
| 31 | De Baca | NM | A | 24.7 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 32 | Bastrop | TX | A | 24.8 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 33 | Crowley | CO | A | 25.0 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 34 | Latah | ID | A | 25.0 | — Stable | Low | Hostile |
| 35 | Polk | IA | A | 25.2 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 36 | Snohomish | WA | A | 25.3 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 37 | Glenn | CA | A | 25.5 | — Stable | Low | Favorable |
| 38 | Dallam | TX | A | 25.5 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 39 | Travis | TX | A | 25.5 | — Stable | High | Neutral |
| 40 | San Saba | TX | A | 25.6 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 41 | Jefferson | TX | A | 25.6 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 42 | DeWitt | IL | A | 25.7 | — Stable | High | Favorable |
| 43 | Washington | UT | A | 25.8 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 44 | Davis | UT | A | 25.9 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 45 | Jefferson | MT | A | 25.9 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 46 | Broadwater | MT | A | 25.9 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 47 | Ward | TX | A | 26.0 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 48 | Glasscock | TX | A | 26.0 | — Stable | Low | Neutral |
| 49 | Franklin | VT | A | 26.1 | — Stable | Moderate | Favorable |
| 50 | Ramsey | MN | A | 26.2 | — Stable | Moderate | 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.