• Newsletters

State of Siting | April 2026

Newsletter

As we near the end of a short session year, and more legislatures wrap up their work, we’re starting to see where siting policy landed in each state. 10 more states adjourned in April: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Tennessee, leaving 25 states still in general session today, with most adjourning by the end of June. Currently, we’re tracking 105 siting bills across 20 states. At this point in the session, the ratio of restrictive to permissive bills is close to breaking even, which is an improvement from last year.

Before we dive in, I want to note a change in the format of this newsletter: I’ve incorporated a new bill naming system to provide more political context in a quickly readable format. Each bill will include the number of sponsors along with their party affiliation. An asterisk (*) indicates that the bill’s primary sponsor is the chair of the assigned committee, a relevant caucus leader, or a chamber leader. For example:

  • HB XXXX (4R*) – A partisan house bill sponsored by four Republicans, including a chair or ranking member
  • SB XX (3D*, 2R) – A bipartisan senate bill sponsored by a three Democrats, including a chair or ranking member, plus two Republicans
  • HB X (1D) – A partisan house bill sponsored by single Democrat who is not a chair or ranking member

National Siting Policy Trends

Session Updates – States to Watch

Sensible Spotlight | Highlighting a policy that shifts the narrative or moves the ball

  • In California, AB 2239 (1D) seeks to accelerate and streamline the permitting and development of energy infrastructure in designated zones called “infrastructure-constrained energization areas”, defined by areas where renewable energy potential and demand is high but grid infrastructure and thus generation development is lacking. The bill lowers procedural barriers by requiring the PUC, the Energy Commission, and local governments to establish procedures that facilitate expedited development of renewable energy generation and storage facilities, and exempts projects up to 100 MW in these areas from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review if they meet certain conditions. The bill was referred to the Committee on Utilities and Energy and the Committee on Natural Resources on March 9th.

Active bills that would improve renewable energy siting:

  • In Iowa, SF 2447 (Committee) (formerly SF 376) is still in play. SF 2447 is a very similar bill to its failed counterpart HB 2580. In its current form, it sets state standards and procedures for local governments but includes stricter setback distances (3x wind turbine height compared to HF 2580’s 2x height), sets a 120-day permitting timeline, and does not include opt-out provisions for local governments. While this version of the bill would deliver more certainty to developers, the stricter setback standards could impact the economic viability of certain projects. However, we’ve recently heard that SF 2447 will undergo significant revisions, including removing all state standard provisions and instead clarifying the Iowa Utilities Commission’s (IUC) authority to approve Generating Certificates. This revision is in direct response to two recent decisions from the Iowa Supreme Court and the IUC. First, in the case of Worthwhile Wind LLC vs. Worth County Board of Supervisors, the Iowa Supreme Court decided that significant monetary investment isn’t enough to secure vesting rights for a project. This means that a county can amend their ordinance to restrict renewables or establish moratoriums regardless of whether a developer has already made significant investments in a project. Second, the IUC recently handed down a decision that says developers can go to the IUC for project approval even when local zoning requirements have not been satisfied, essentially preempting local control. April 21st was the 100th day of session, meaning legislators will no longer receive per diem pay moving forward. This marks the targeted end of session, but it’s unclear when the legislature will officially adjourn.
  • In Missouri, HB 2762 (1R) proposes a guardrails approach to regulating local solar energy permitting and amends current renewable energy property tax structures in the state. While some of the standards lean restrictive, overall, the bill would provide consistency in ordinances, finance certainty for developers, and is especially reasonable when compared to the other bills introduced and under consideration in Missouri. The bill establishes statewide maximum standards for local ordinances that include setback distances, pre-construction notification requirements, decommissioning plan and financial assurance requirements. While the bill’s 500-foot setback from dwellings is significantly restrictive, a provision is included that allows for 300-foot setbacks when paired with screening, and all participating landowner setbacks can be waived with the owner’s consent, bringing the standards back to more reasonable levels. The tax provisions include establishing a $4,000 per MW capacity tax that replaces current property taxation. The bill passed the House Utilities Committee and was referred to the Rules Committee on April 15th.
  • Oklahoma’s HB 3464 (5R*) represents a softer approach to state-level siting regulation. The bill establishes some statewide standards for energy storage and solar development and preempts any form of local government from adopting energy storage regulations beyond those outlined in the bill. The energy storage standards include reasonable safety provisions such as compliance with fire code, requirements around emergency operations plans, decommissioning and financial assurance standards, and financial support to local fire departments. The solar development standards focus more on transparency and local financial protections such as annual energy generation reporting requirements, pre-construction notices, providing site plans to the State Fire Marshall, and decommissioning financial assurance. While these standards provide more regulatory certainty in terms of project standards by preempting further regulation, this bill does not preempt local siting authority, so decisions on if and where projects are built still lie with the local government. The bill passed the House on March 30th and was referred to the Senate Energy Committee on April 1st.
  • In Arizona, HB 2494 (3R) provides an optional pathway to avoid potentially restrictive local zoning ordinances. The bill is an “all of the above” energy siting bill that centralizes siting authority at the state level for qualifying energy infrastructure projects. The bill has passed out of the House, the Senate Natural Resources Committee, and the Senate Rules Committee. The next step is the third reading on the Senate floor for a vote. Both the minority and majority caucuses have recommended passage of the bill. Overall, this bill provides an example of how all-of-the-above energy policy can garner bipartisan support in a legislature otherwise opposed to renewable energy, as suggested by the majority of siting bills introduced this session being restrictive.
  • In Massachusetts, H 5175 (Committee) is a comprehensive energy bill that seeks to address rising energy costs with accelerated clean energy deployment, strengthening consumer protections, modernizing the grid, and more. The renewable deployment provisions include authorizing the state to co-invest with offshore wind developers on pre-development studies and planning to reduce project risk and speed timelines, creating a streamlined permitting process for renewable energy projects using surplus capacity at existing interconnection points, and various provisions that would streamline transmission siting and optimize new grid infrastructure development. The bill is the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy’s redraft of the governor’s Energy Affordability Bill (HB 4144) that was filed last year and has officially failed to progress after a study order was filed on April 6th, 2026. H 5175 is currently pending the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
  • Rhode Island’s SB 2800 (2D*) seeks to incentivize and streamline permitting energy storage systems on brownfields and other blighted property through a few mechanisms. First, it adds energy storage as a priority criterion that buyers can satisfy to get preference in court-ordered sales of blighted, abandoned properties. Second, it requires by-right permitting for energy storage projects proposed on blighted property that have gone through a receivership sales process. Lastly, it extends the “Renewable Ready” law to energy storage systems, which grants by-right permitting status on all previously contaminated sites. The Senate Housing and Municipal Government Committee held its first hearing on the bill on April 9th, where the committee voted to hold the bill for further study. This is a common next step in the Rhode Island legislative process and it will likely be taken up again.
  • In New York, SB 4408 (1D)/AB 10483 (6D) removes a barrier to siting renewables near reforestation areas by authorizing the Department of Environmental Conservation to enter into lease agreements or easements in reforestation areas to build transmission infrastructure for the purpose of interconnection of renewable energy facilities sited outside of such protected areas. This bill provides clarity to a legally ambiguous issue around authority and legality around running interconnection lines through state-owned reforestation land protected under the state constitution, thus enabling grid access and making more sites viable for renewable development. The bill was carried over from last year’s session and passed the Senate as amended on April 1st, with the Assembly reprinting their companion bill the same day, now awaiting action.

Active bills that would make renewable energy siting more difficult:

  • In Arizona, HB 2975 (2R) proposes a reorientation of state land use priorities from solar development to housing and mining development. The bill requires removing solar scoring or any similar solar potential evaluation from the Commissioner’s state land use decision making and replacing it with mining resource and housing resource scoring frameworks. Both Senate majority and minority caucuses recommended its passage and on April 13th, the Senate Committee of the Whole recommended passage. Next the bill will go to the Senate floor for a third reading and final vote.
  • In Missouri, some of the most restrictive bills in the country are progressing through the legislature. SB 879 (1R) would create a mandatory county-level permitting process for solar projects over 20 continuous acres (approximately 4 MW) and establish stringent setbacks, noise, and decommissioning standards. The bill also sets a cap for solar on cropland at no more than 2% in any county and changes the tax assessment of solar projects to a flat rate assessment at $6,000 per megawatt. The bill passed through committee in late February and is on the calendar for April 27th for “perfection”, rescheduled from its original date in March. Its companion in the House, HB 2478 (1R) was considered in an executive session on April 13th, but action on the bill was postponed. Additionally, SB 849 (1R), a bill establishing a statewide moratorium on renewable energy, passed through its committees and was scheduled for perfection on April 23rd, rescheduled from its original date in March.
  • In New York, AB 9895 (1R) would dismantle the state’s centralized siting framework established through the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) by repealing Article 8 from New York’s Public Service Law, which allows the bypassing of local zoning in many cases and establishes stricter timelines to streamline permitting large-scale renewable energy projects. This would revert the state back to the previous framework of Article 10, which has been criticized for creating permitting bottlenecks. The bill was referred to the Energy and Telecommunications Committee on April 13th. Additionally, SB 9917 (1R)/AB 10965 (1R) would restore local siting authority on top of the existing state siting framework, adding a strenuous layer to the permitting process. Each bill was referred to their respective committees on April 14th.  

Bills that have passed the legislature:

  • In Colorado, HB 1268 (25D) incentivizes renewable development on brownfields by creating a voluntary designation of Renewable Energy Reinvestment Areas that local governments may apply to eligible previously disturbed or contaminated sites to streamline permitting through by-right approvals and unlock tax increment financing for renewable energy projects. The bill was passed by the legislature on April 14th and now awaits the governor’s signature.
  • Mississippi passed SB 2527 (2R*), a bill that sets minimum decommissioning standards for renewable energy projects on privately leased lands, except for projects owned and operated by public utilities. First, the bill requires that all lease agreements provide for the removal of all components of the solar facility and the restoration of the land to a condition suitable for the previous land use. Second, it establishes standards to ensure financial assurance guarantees for landowners in a three-phase schedule over 15 years upon the project’s operation. Notably, the bill also limits local governments from imposing standards that are more restrictive than the outlined provisions. Decommissioning is a real point of concern around renewable development, and this bill provides a win-win for the stakeholders involved—it protects landowners and communities in the end-of-life process while providing certainty of standards for developers.
  • In Nebraska, LB 1010 (1R*) provides certainty around regulations of energy storage development by integrating the technology into the state’s electric utility laws, adding them under the inherent powers of public power entities. However, the bill limits the ability for private electric suppliers to develop standalone energy storage by requiring them to receive approval from the Power Review Board, acquiring a long-term power purchase agreement prior to board approval, and receiving approval from all electric suppliers that will use any of the resource in their retail service area. Additionally, the bill allows public power entities to condemn privately developed storage facilities at any time. The bill passed both chambers and was signed into law by the Governor on April 14th. The state session ended April 17th .
  • In Oregon, HB 4076 (2D*) passed both chambers and was signed into law, effective June 5, 2026. The bill streamlines Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) and county level procedural hurdles for permitting surplus interconnection energy projects. The bill establishes an automatic “reasons justify” exception for projects proposed on agricultural land, which establishes a set of conditions that a proposed facility must meet to satisfy the exceptions requirements and allow for the facility’s approval. At both the EFSC and county permitting thresholds, the proposed facility must use an existing energy facility’s surplus interconnection capacity and not require associated transmission lines more than two miles from the site boundaries of the existing facility to meet the reasons justify standard. Additionally, for county level permitting (mid-sized renewable energy projects), the county must also adopt findings that address 6 factors: availability of non-resource land for the propose use, availability and use of existing infrastructure and rights-of-way, public health and safety, compatibility with surrounding agricultural and rural uses, a mitigation plan for impacts to surrounding land uses, farm practices and water, and compliance with applicable local, state, and federal requirements. While this additional condition adds more procedural requirements, it’s less burdensome than a traditional permitting process.

Bills that have stalled or failed:

  • The legislative sessions of Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, and Tennessee ended without the passage of any siting bills.
  • In Alabama, all the bills that would have negatively impacted renewable deployment in the state failed to pass both chambers. Notably, each pair of the following bills were introduced by legislators representing Baldwin County– Sen. Greg Albritton and Rep. Matt Simpson, suggesting a coordinated response to solar development in the area, specifically to the Stockton Solar Project being developed by Silicon Ranch. SB 354 (1R)/HB 617 (1R) would have placed a moratorium on all solar development in the state for one year, except for projects proposed in areas under the Tennessee Valley Authority. SB 354 passed in the Senate but failed to progress through the House before adjournment on April 9th, and HB 617 stalled after its second reading. SB 358 (1R)/HB 618 (1R) would have granted solar project regulatory authority to Alabama’s Gulf Coast counties—Baldwin and Mobile counties. Local control without state-level safety net provisions essentially enables carte blanche exclusions of large-scale solar in those specific areas and sets a dangerous precedent for any future legislation. SB 358 was indefinitely postponed on April 7th, and its companion stalled after its second This success in Alabama can be attributed to a coalition of opposition that included advanced manufacturers, Alabama Chambers of Commerce, the steel industry, solar developers, legislators representing high-poverty districts in need of economic development, and more.
  • In Iowa, HF 2580 (Committee) (formerly HSB 692) has stalled in the House. The bill would have delivered a win for renewable energy development in the state by setting uniform statewide standards for local ordinances. These guardrails would have limited local government’s ability to prevent development through restrictive zoning ordinances. Notably and problematically, the bill would have allowed local governments to opt out of these standards if they provided public notice on the potential lost revenue of not permitting the project, and if they hold a public hearing demonstrating that non-compliant standards are necessary to prevent impacts on health or safety of residents or public facilities. There was an attempt to work HF 2580 and its similar counterpart in the Senate into a single more permissive version, but that proved unsuccessful.
  • Similarly to neighboring Alabama, in Mississippi, all efforts to restrict siting in this legislative session failed. HB 1069 (R3*), a bill that would have established state level siting authority with restrictive statewide standards for wind projects, managed to pass both chambers but died in conference after a reconsideration of the Senate’s amendments. The state session ended on April 5th.
  • In Nebraska, LB 1193 (1D) failed to progress through the legislature despite being a more permissive version of the successful LB 1010 (1R*). The bill would have brought battery energy storage systems into the state’s existing renewable energy regulatory and tax framework, exempting the projects from personal property tax in place of a nameplate capacity tax of $2,952 per MW. The first 5 years of nameplate capacity tax revenue are classified as non-restricted funds for local budget purposes. Additionally, the bill streamlines the approval process for co-located battery projects, only requiring a 30-day notification before construction rather than needing full Board approval. A notable difference from LB 1010 is that this bill would have prohibited consumer-owned electric suppliers from condemning energy storage projects through eminent domain. Overall, the passage of this bill would have improved battery storage siting in the state by providing tax clarity and stability, while streamlining permitting processes. The state session ended on April 17th.
  • In Wisconsin, SB 3/AB 7 (23R) failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, meaning it did not meet the deadlines set jointly by the legislature. The companion bills would have been detrimental to future renewable deployment in the state by requiring developers to receive local approval via resolution before seeking a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Public Service Commission. This grants siting authority to local governments, allowing them to deny large scale renewable energy project siting applications, an authority currently only held by the state.
SHARE