Arkansas panelists say solar’s climate and economic benefits are clear but end-of-life recycling needs planning

Glenn Hooks, policy manager for Audubon Delta, told the Senate City, County & Local Affairs Committee that solar power reduces air pollution and provides economic benefits to schools, cities and businesses while urging lawmakers to plan for panels’ end of life. “We can have both,” Hooks said, summarizing his view that clean-energy deployment and environmental protection are compatible.

Industry witnesses who followed gave specifics about how panels are handled when they leave service. Lauren Waldorf, executive director of the Arkansas Advanced Energy Association, said net-metering contracts and project documents increasingly include decommissioning and end-of-life management plans and noted federal and industry work on the issue, including Department of Energy and EPA efforts. “The Department of Energy has a plan. The EPA has a plan,” Waldorf said.

Installers described common practice. Jade Nusick, co‑founder of Arkansas Solar Power, said most tier‑1 panels carry manufacturer performance warranties (often 25–30 years) and that modern panels are heavily composed of glass and aluminum — components that are straightforward to recover — while some precious metals (silver) and electronics are reclaimed or refurbished. Nusick said most panels are still productive well after warranty end and that decommissioning contracts typically assign responsibility to the project owner and include recycling pathways.

Recyclers and developers acknowledged unresolved issues. Joseph Tucker of Esco Processing said U.S. recycling services exist but local processing capacity in Arkansas is limited and that the economics of recycling vary by panel type and transport distance. He noted that the EPA’s TCLP (toxic characteristic leaching procedure) helps classify whether an older panel would be considered hazardous for landfill purposes, and that many modern, tier‑1 panels pass that test.

Panelists disagreed with a fatalistic framing that panels inevitably become hazardous waste. Nusick said “most modern tier 1 solar panels pass the TCLP test,” while industry representatives pointed to manufacturer programs — for example, First Solar’s well‑established recycling offering — covering logistics for large projects. Adam Ness of Integrity Partners added that some module manufacturers offer to transport and recycle material as part of their standard service.

Committee members raised several persistent concerns: the cost to recycle versus landfill disposal (witnesses said recycling is more expensive but could become commercially viable at scale), whether older/early‑generation panels might fail TCLP and therefore require special handling, and whether panels retired elsewhere could be shipped into Arkansas landfills. Panelists recommended clarifying state-level regulations tied to EPA guidance, expanding local recycling capacity and embedding decommissioning obligations in project contracts so liabilities do not fall to counties or solid‑waste districts.

The hearing produced no formal action on a bill; committee members asked staff and agencies to compile more information for the interim study and to coordinate with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and the Public Service Commission on regulatory questions and capacity planning.

The committee recessed after the presentations, with panelists offering to supply written references and industry programs to committee staff.