Missouri utilities committee debates committee substitute for solar siting and taxation bill

The House Utilities Committee on Wednesday reviewed a proposed committee substitute for a solar regulation bill (referred to in committee as "House Bill 27 62"), focusing debate on taxation, setbacks, bonding and decommissioning rules.

Representative Vanderman, who presented the substitute to the committee, said the measure would levy a nameplate‑capacity tax set at $3,000 when a project begins operation with an annual escalator of 2 percent. "The initial year that a project goes in... that taxation would be $3,000 on the nameplate capacity of that" he told the committee, and a spreadsheet circulated by staff shows the escalator rising to about $4,000 by year 15 and roughly $5,400 by year 30.

Vanderman also described how real property used for solar panels could be reclassified for commercial assessment while land used for setbacks or undeveloped acreage would remain excluded from that reclassification. He said the substitute sets setback distances in a new statutory section: a project must be at least 500 feet from the nearest occupied dwelling existing at the time of construction; if the facility is fully screened by native vegetation or a permanent board or fence that restricts visibility, the setback may be 300 feet. "So the distance is set at 500 feet unless there's a screening in place... it shall be at least 300 feet," Vanderman said, and the substitute allows adjacent landowners to negotiate shorter setbacks by written agreement.

On bonding and decommissioning, Vanderman said the bill would require projects to register with the state department identified in the transcript as the "Department of EcoDevo," pay a $500 registration fee, file an engineer‑prepared decommissioning plan and provide a bond sized to the cost of construction and decommissioning. He said those bonding and decommissioning rules would not apply to projects authorized under Chapter 100 of state law.

Several committee members urged changes. Representative Lewis said the $3,000 base and 2 percent escalator were too low and recommended raising the base to about $4,000 with a 3 percent escalator, saying "2% doesn't even cover inflation some years." Lewis and others also argued the proposed setbacks are insufficient to protect neighbors; Lewis said property values and quality‑of‑life effects from nearby projects are real, and he urged stronger setbacks and a setback measured from property lines.

Representative Weber asked where the setback figures came from; Vanderman said industry site selectors told him setbacks over 300 feet begin to complicate siting and that the substitute attempts to balance siting feasibility and neighbor protections. Representative Warwick asked why the bill uses "occupied dwelling" rather than a "foundation" standard and raised concerns that temporary vehicles like RVs could be claimed as occupied dwellings during negotiations.

Representative Scholte urged the committee to consider fire safety, citing guidance (noted in testimony) recommending larger fire breaks and cautioning that vegetation screens could increase fire load and impede firefighting access. Representative Pollitt and others emphasized loss of productive farmland under panels as a key concern and supported the bill's negotiation/compensation provision for neighbors; they also asked whether local governments retain authority to adopt percentage caps on acreage (Vanderman said that permissive cap language from another bill was not in the substitute and he was not certain counties retained that power under the current draft).

On bonding, members asked how requirements would apply when projects are developed by short‑lived LLCs that later sell to investor‑owned utilities; Vanderman said the substitute mandates registration, a fee and an engineer‑prepared decommissioning plan but acknowledged bonding transferability and enforcement details need clarifying.

The committee did not take a vote. The chair said staff will re‑examine bonding and setback language and stated his goal to return with a committee substitute after spring break so members can consider revisions. "My goal would be that sometime right after the spring break, we'll come back with a committee sub," the chair said. The committee then adjourned.