Senators seek report on solar projects covering prime agricultural soils, debate delaying parts of S.710

The Senate Natural Resources & Energy committee on Tuesday debated amendments to S.710 that would heighten review of solar project siting on prime agricultural soils, with senators directing staff to seek additional data from the Public Service Department.

Senator Rosel, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told colleagues the bill was "not an anti-solar bill" but argued for stricter review before converting farmland to energy production, saying "solar projects are on about 80% of prime ag land" and urging the committee to "take a harder look" at siting decisions.

The request for a report aims to provide concrete data: members asked the Public Service Department to report by Jan. 15 on how many acres of prime soils were developed over the past five years, what share of that development was attributable to solar (type 2 projects), how many acres within projects were directly disturbed, prior land use, whether farmers retained ownership, and trees cleared by forest type. "Show us that argument that it's better to be there versus some place else," one committee member said, pressing developers' case for site selection.

Committee members questioned Rosel's cited statistic and whether solar installations on farmland are effectively permanent. "It's very highly unlikely that once you tie up a piece of land that reverts back," Rosel said, while others noted some sites have timed out and been renewed. Members also debated whether existing Public Utility Commission (PUC) site reviews and Act 250 processes already capture needed analysis; proponents said the requested report would consolidate and clarify the data for policy decisions.

Lawmakers discussed drafting a substitute amendment that would delay the effective date of specific provisions to allow more time for study and stakeholder input. Several senators supported asking the Public Service Department for recommendations on incentives and financing to encourage siting on already-impacted lands such as rooftops and parking lots rather than on prime farmland.

Legislative Council staff agreed to assist in drafting the report request and substitute language and to circulate it for review ahead of the afternoon's floor work. The committee took informal thumbs polls on the Engles amendment and on Senator Han's amendments; members indicated varying support and planned further consideration later in the day.

The committee's next procedural step is to finalize the language for a report request and any substitute amendment and to return to the issue after floor activity; no formal recorded roll-call vote on the bill's amendments was taken during this meeting.