Senator from Callaway advances solar‑farm substitute, prompting property‑rights scrutiny
April 07, 2026 | 2026 Legislature MO, Missouri
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Senator from Callaway moved the Senate substitute for senate bill 8 79, a multi‑year effort to set a statewide regulatory framework for large industrial solar farms, telling colleagues the change responds to “so many constituents” concerned about projects proposed near homes and farmland. The sponsor said the sub removes county permitting authority for these massive installations, places investor‑owned utilities under the Public Service Commission and creates a Department of Natural Resources regulatory track for independent developers, municipalities and co‑ops.
The substitute also outlines a per‑megawatt charge that the sponsor described as a sliding scale tied to agricultural land grades. “If you’re gonna ... put these on the prime land of the state ... you’ll pay $4,500 per megawatt hour on the nameplate,” the sponsor said, and the draft moves down to $2,500 on lower‑grade land. He said the bill reduces setbacks from 1,000 to 500 feet for dwellings and adds provisions for bonding and decommissioning at end of life, and includes eminent‑domain protections.
Why this matters: advocates for the substitute say the state lacks a consistent regulatory approach for facilities that can span thousands of acres and hundreds of megawatts, while opponents say the draft tax structure could treat neighboring landowners differently and shift where developers site projects.
Members pressed the sponsor on implementation and tax mechanics. The senator from the eighth and others sought clarity about whether the per‑megawatt charge is in addition to commercial or personal property assessments and how many acres a megawatt represents; one lawmaker noted “about 7 acres is needed to generate a megawatt” and asked whether those acres would be reclassified for taxation. The sponsor said local assessors would continue to make assessments and that the sub ties the per‑MW amounts to USDA agricultural grades and to CPI adjustments; he also said he was open to negotiating a uniform nameplate approach similar to a house version that used $4,000 per megawatt.
A number of senators highlighted the need to balance property rights with a predictable statewide regime. “You don’t treat people differently,” one senator told the sponsor, urging a uniform approach rather than grading land and applying different rates. The sponsor responded that the measure aims to discourage using prime farmland for large projects while preserving local tax revenues for communities that host them.
The sponsor asked for the bill to be placed on the calendar; the presiding officer announced that senate bill 8 79 would be laid on the informal calendar. No final floor vote on the substitute was recorded during the session; the sponsor told colleagues he remains willing to negotiate implementation details, including the tax calculation and assessor guidance, before the bill returns for further consideration.
The substitute also outlines a per‑megawatt charge that the sponsor described as a sliding scale tied to agricultural land grades. “If you’re gonna ... put these on the prime land of the state ... you’ll pay $4,500 per megawatt hour on the nameplate,” the sponsor said, and the draft moves down to $2,500 on lower‑grade land. He said the bill reduces setbacks from 1,000 to 500 feet for dwellings and adds provisions for bonding and decommissioning at end of life, and includes eminent‑domain protections.
Why this matters: advocates for the substitute say the state lacks a consistent regulatory approach for facilities that can span thousands of acres and hundreds of megawatts, while opponents say the draft tax structure could treat neighboring landowners differently and shift where developers site projects.
Members pressed the sponsor on implementation and tax mechanics. The senator from the eighth and others sought clarity about whether the per‑megawatt charge is in addition to commercial or personal property assessments and how many acres a megawatt represents; one lawmaker noted “about 7 acres is needed to generate a megawatt” and asked whether those acres would be reclassified for taxation. The sponsor said local assessors would continue to make assessments and that the sub ties the per‑MW amounts to USDA agricultural grades and to CPI adjustments; he also said he was open to negotiating a uniform nameplate approach similar to a house version that used $4,000 per megawatt.
A number of senators highlighted the need to balance property rights with a predictable statewide regime. “You don’t treat people differently,” one senator told the sponsor, urging a uniform approach rather than grading land and applying different rates. The sponsor responded that the measure aims to discourage using prime farmland for large projects while preserving local tax revenues for communities that host them.
The sponsor asked for the bill to be placed on the calendar; the presiding officer announced that senate bill 8 79 would be laid on the informal calendar. No final floor vote on the substitute was recorded during the session; the sponsor told colleagues he remains willing to negotiate implementation details, including the tax calculation and assessor guidance, before the bill returns for further consideration.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
