We’re officially back to track the 2026 legislative season! For many states, legislative sessions in even-numbered years are often half the length of an odd-year session, so that legislators can adjourn early to begin their reelection campaigns. This means cutoffs arrive earlier, too, and its likely to be a chaotic few months. So far this year, we’ve seen active siting legislation in at least 34 states. Most of these bills would seriously restrict new clean energy development if they passed, typically by creating onerous statewide requirements that overrule local siting jurisdictions.
National Siting Policy Trends
- Establishing restrictive statewide zoning standards is a commonly proposed siting reform this year (IN HB 1333, IA HF 2081, MD HB 460, MS SB 2641, MS HB 1492, MO SB 879, MO HB 2402, NE LB 1027, NY SB 8712, OK SB 2183, UT HB 16, VT HB 677, WV HB 4971), as is establishing stringent, cost prohibitive permitting processes specific to renewables, where no similar requirements exist for fossil resources (AZ HB 2338, AZ HB 2267, FL HB 1145, IL HB 4956, IN SB 54, NE LB 1027, NY SB 8712, OK SB 1606, OK SB 1510, SC SB 784, VT HB 561, VA SB 588).
- On the flip side, some states are introducing bills that establish permissive statewide zoning standards (IL HB 4996, IA HSB 692, VA HB 711, VA SB 347) and bills that could streamline the permitting process (CO SB 33, MD SB 26, NJ SB 737, OK HB 3464, VA HB 891, WA HB 2509, WV HB 4012).
- Bills expanding local control over renewable energy permitting with no permissive safety net provisions at the state level are being proposed (AZ HB 2781, FL HB 193, FL SB 200, IL HB 4873, IL HB 5043, OK HB 2972, OK HB 3723), thereby increasing local governments’ authority to exclude renewables.
- Bills establishing outright or implicit bans on various renewable energy technologies are proliferating (MO SB 849, MO SB 933, RI HB 7182, .
Session Updates – States to Watch
Sensible Spotlight | Highlighting a policy that shifts the narrative or moves the ball.
- In Washington, HB 1960 would enable significant progress for renewable deployment by amending tax policy to encourage permissive, local siting through an incentive structure very similar to a payment-in-lieu-of-tax scheme. Local governments are not eligible to receive the revenue if they do not permit a renewable energy project through the model ordinance developed by the Department of Commerce. The bill advanced to the House for its second reading on February 17
Active bills that would improve renewable energy siting:
- In Arizona, HB 2494 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 . The bill passed the Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee on a party line vote (no Democratic support) and passed the Rules Committee with a bipartisan unanimous vote.
- In Iowa, several siting bills have been introduced in the 2026 session, but two bills could deliver a win for wind development in the state. HF 2580 sets uniform statewide standards for local ordinances, including setbacks and turbine height limits. If passed, these guardrails would limit local government’s ability to prevent wind development through restrictive zoning ordinances. Notably, the bill allows local governments to opt out of these standards if they provide 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. The House Commerce Committee passed an earlier version of the bill, HSB 692, which was then renumbered as HF 2580 with minor amendments, meaning the bill has survived the first funnel, indicating a strong likelihood of passing. SF 376 is a very similar bill that sets state standards and procedures for local governments but includes stricter setback distances (3x turbine height compared to HF 2580’s 2x height), sets a 120-day permitting timeline, and does not include the opt-out provisions. While these standards could deliver more certainty to developers, the setback standards are set at 3x turbine height, more restrictive than most turbine setbacks, which could impact the economic viability of certain projects. The bill has passed out of committee in the Senate and will go to the floor for its second reading.
- In Maine, legislators have introduced LD 2174, a major state siting reform bill that would establish a state permitting framework for renewable energy and transmission projects. This bill requires projects to receive a single state-issued permit, centralizes and streamlines interagency and municipal review procedures, sets a 105-day review window with automatic approval if the timeline is overshot, standardizes application and notice requirements, and establishes limitations on local actions that could delay or prohibit renewable The bill also directs the Department of Environmental Protection to create a “Permit by Rule” process during rulemaking that would automatically approve permit projects meeting the specified standards. This bill would significantly improve renewable energy and transmission infrastructure permitting certainty. A hearing on the bill is scheduled in the Joint Environment and Natural Resources Committee on February 25th.
- In Oregon, legislators are offering a unique solution to the problem of the impending end of federal renewable energy tax credits through HB 4031. The bill creates an exception to the requirement of obtaining a siting certificate from the state siting council for qualifying renewable energy facilities that meet federal tax credit eligibility criteria. This would significantly streamline the siting process by reducing permitting timelines and regulatory risk. The bill passed in the House on February 12th and will now move to the Senate.
- In Virginia, the legislature has introduced (and passed) a myriad of siting bills this session that would have a positive, yet varying impact on renewable energy deployment in the state. First, most notably, HB 429 would streamline the interconnection process for battery storage and solar projects, creating a pathway for projects to use the surplus unused capacity at existing interconnection points, avoiding the need to join the queue for a new point of connection. The bill passed the House and is now at the Senate’s Committee on Commerce and Labor. SB 443, which would streamline co-located battery storage siting, has passed both chambers and is now at the Governor’s desk. SB 347 establishes statewide zoning ordinance guardrails for solar projects. While this provides certainty to developers, permitting authority is still held at the local level and any permit denials or incompatible ordinances must be appealed through the courts, which is a costly and time-intensive process. The bill has passed both chambers and will now be sent to the Governor.
Active bills that would make renewable energy siting more difficult:
- In Arizona, 4 out of the 6 siting bills introduced by the legislature are intended to restrict renewable energy development. HB 2267 takes a unique and aggressive approach to restricting renewables by amending the state’s public nuisance statute to constitute utility-scale solar and wind farms as an automatic public nuisance unless they receive a certificate from the state siting committee. The bill passed the House Natural Resources, Energy, and Water Committee, indicating potential for continued advancement. Another bill, HB 2915, would require counties to establish a residential property tax reduction fund for large renewable energy facilities after zoning approval. If passed, this could disincentivize local governments from permitting projects due to the uncertainty of tax revenue streams caused by the fund. The bill is pending the House Rules Committee before it makes it to the floor for its third reading.
- In Illinois, two bills have been introduced that would re-empower local zoning authority if passed. HB 5043 amends the Illinois Municipal Code to repeal provisions preventing municipalities from prohibiting solar energy systems and authorizes municipalities to regulate or prohibit solar energy systems. HB 4873 amends the Counties Code to allow counties to enforce zoning ordinances governing commercial wind and solar facilities. Both bills enable restricting renewable energy development at the local level, representing a major step back from the progress made since reforms first passed in 2023.
- In Iowa, HF 2446 could constrain new utility-scale wind deployment by adding extensive pre-permit requirements and costly liabilities for developers. The bill adds subsurface and environmental surveys and third-party insurance as requirements for receiving a construction permit. Additionally, the bill requires developers to obtain an independent legal opinion that the project would not constitute a nuisance under Iowa law and must demonstrate to the County Board of Supervisors that the project would produce a net benefit to county residents. Any violations of public nuisance laws would result in civil penalties of at least $5,000 per day. The bill was originally introduced as SB 3178 but was replaced by HF 2446 as has been referred to the House Commerce Committee.
- Missouri has introduced some of the most restrictive legislation in the country this session. There are several active bills that could significantly worsen renewable energy development. SB 879 would create a mandatory county-level permitting process for solar projects over 20 continuous acres and establishes stringent setback, 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 House introduced a similar version of this bill with HB 2402 which is less restrictive in its ordinance standards, an optional 4% cropland cap, and a $2,500 per megawatt tax assessment. Both bills would have a negative impact on renewable deployment if passed. Legislators have also introduced bills creating statewide moratoriums on renewable energy projects (SB 849 and SB 933), and bills that would eliminate or constrain the state’s use of eminent domain for energy infrastructure (SB 849 and SB 954 passed the Senate’s Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Energy & Environment committee on February 10 and February 19, respectively.
- Like Missouri, Oklahoma legislators have introduced 6 bills that would inhibit the development of renewable energy projects in the state. While most of these bills are still in the early stages and have yet to move from committees, they’re worth keeping an eye on. Most notably, HB 2972 and HB 3723 would expand local control significantly, establishing a local ordinance petition process for residents and creating a new mandatory local approval requirement for all clean energy projects, respectively.
- In Utah, HB 16 is gaining momentum and would disincentivize renewable energy development on agricultural land by removing a project’s eligibility for state incentives if sited on cropland. While the bill also includes a pro-development provision prohibiting local governments from unreasonably withholding approval for projects, the agricultural land provisions likely outweigh potential positive impacts of the bill. The bill has already passed the House and is now on its 3rd reading in the Senate.
Bills that have stalled or failed:
- In Virginia, HB 920 died in the House Labor and Commerce committee after a bipartisan vote to strike it from the docket. The bill would have increased the maximum capacity for offshore wind facilities deemed to be in the public interest from 5,200 megawatts to 25,000 megawatts and accelerated the deadline for such development from the end of 2032 to 2030.
- In Colorado, SB 33 was postponed indefinitely by the Senate Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs. The bill proposed to establish the Clean Energy Permitting Coordination Office to streamline permitting processes across state agencies.
- In Rhode Island, it appears that H 7182 has stalled in the House. The bill was introduced and referred to the House Corporations Committee on January 21, and there has been no action on the bill since. This bill would have significantly restricted renewable development in Rhode Island by limiting utility-scale solar siting to already-developed land or accessory uses such as rooftops, parking lots, commercial properties, etc. The bill also explicitly banned solar on forested land, farmland, and undeveloped properties of more than one acre or more. Though advancement appears to be unlikely, due to the excessive restrictions, we will continue to monitor its activity.
- In Indiana, it appears that SB 54 has stalled in the Senate. The bill was introduced and referred to the Utilities Committee on December 08, 2025, but there has been no action since January 6 when another bill author was added. SB 54 would have prohibited zoning overlays for solar projects unless solar was a permitted land use for every underlying zoning district. This would require each applicable district to rezone for the use, creating substantial permitting burdens.
- In West Virginia, it appears that HB 4038, a highly restrictive bill, has stalled in the House. The bill was introduced and referred to the Energy and Public Works committee on January 14, but there has been no action since then. The bill would limit the number of permits to construct wind projects to two permits per year in the state and ties new wind development to tax offsets for coal plants, resulting in a 5% reduction for every new wind power plant constructed. This is a novel approach and one the most explicitly anti-renewables, pro-coal bills to come out of the session. We will continue to monitor its activity.
- In Illinois, it appears that SB 2706 has stalled in the Senate. The bill was assigned to the Revenue Committee on January 27, but there has been no action since then. The bill would amend the property tax code to increase wind and solar project valuations, thereby increasing property tax burdens for renewable developers.
If you’d like more information, or if there’s anything we’ve missed, please reach out to siting@cleantomorrow.com.