House Energy panel backs conference to revise Senate study on H.710’s solar–farmland questions

The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday recommended sending H.710 to a committee of conference after the Senate added a study on solar development’s impacts on primary agricultural soils.

Representative Kathleen James, chair of the committee, said the House had passed H.710 in February but the Senate’s floor amendment added a study (the Watson amendment) whose data requests may be impractical for state agencies to answer as written. "It's passed on third reading," James said, "but it hasn't been messaged over yet," and the committee should prepare to reconcile the Senate's changes.

Legislative Counsel Ellen Takowski walked the committee through draft 2.2 as modified by the Senate's draft 3.1. She said sections one and two adjust the bill’s definition of an electricity-generating "plant" for the renewable energy chapter, while sections three and four expand the Public Utility Commission's authority to bill back for outside experts and establish a decommissioning fund for electric generation and energy storage facilities. Section five requires the PUC to report back next February on a proposed formula for decommissioning fees.

"There is a requirement in section 248 [the CPG process] that facilities be properly decommissioned at the end of the useful life," Takowski said, describing section 248E as a mechanism to hold decommissioning fees and allow limited disbursements for remediation or ownerless projects.

The Senate's Watson amendment (labeled 2A) would require the Commissioner of Public Service, after consulting the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets, to report by Jan. 15, 2027 on multiple measures: how many acres of primary agricultural soils were developed over the last five years and what share was attributable to solar; how many acres used for solar were directly impacted versus in the broader project disturbance area; how many acres were in active agricultural use before development and the prior agricultural use; how many acres remain owned by farmers after development; tree-clearing totals broken down by forest type; and recommendations to encourage siting on already-disturbed land such as rooftops and parking lots.

Representatives and agency staff warned that several of those questions ask for data the PUC and Department of Public Service do not collect in the requested form. "We just don't know how many acres were developed for any purpose," a PUC representative told the committee, noting the agency cannot produce statewide, five‑year totals for all development types. The representative recommended narrowing the study's scope to make it achievable: limit some questions to a one- or two-year window and to projects of one megawatt or larger to exclude small, behind-the-meter net‑metering installations.

"If you limited it to only projects 1 megawatt or greater and you have the time period to be one or two years ... that is something the department could produce," the PUC representative said, adding that one year would encompass roughly 10 projects of that size and be feasible to review on a case‑by‑case basis.

Committee members also sought clarity on terminology. Staff and the PUC agreed that "primary agricultural soils" as defined under Act 250 is the statutory standard to be used; members cautioned that shorthand terms such as "prime" have different usages in federal and state contexts.

Several members said they value the information the Watson amendment aims to produce but worry the study as written would be too burdensome or impossible for agencies to complete on the requested timetable. The committee discussed three options: strike the amendment and return the bill to the Senate; accept the amendment as written; or request a committee of conference to negotiate a study that PUC and DPS can perform.

Chair James said taking the bill to conference would allow PUC, the Department of Public Service and the Agency of Agriculture to agree on narrower, achievable language before final enactment. "I think the best way to move this would be to take the bill to conference ... with feedback from PUC, DPS and AGG and pull back the study to something they’re comfortable with and they think they can do," she said.

The committee agreed to a plan to "not concur with the Senate amendment and instead request a committee of conference" and to await the bill being messaged to the House so the floor reporter could recommend conference to the full House. Committee staff said they will draft suggested language for conferees that would limit certain study questions to recent years and to projects one megawatt or larger and will post the committee record.

Next steps: the bill must be messaged from the Senate to the House. When the bill is received, the committee’s floor reporter will give a brief floor report recommending a committee of conference; the Speaker will appoint conferees. The PUC will prepare written suggestions on how to make the study questions achievable, and the committee indicated it prefers pursuing a negotiated study over striking the amendment outright.

The committee did not record a formal roll-call vote on the recommendation in the transcript; members indicated informal agreement and will pursue the conference route once the bill is messaged.