Conferees narrow HB 710 study to recent large solar projects after Nature Conservancy raises data concerns

A joint House–Senate conference committee working on House Bill 710 moved toward a narrower, more targeted study of forest impacts from solar projects after outside experts warned the bill’s initial study language would not produce the detailed habitat data lawmakers wanted.

Representative Kathleen James said the House conferees had reviewed the Senate’s changes with legislative counsel and had no questions about the bill’s new decommissioning language or the revised definition of a "single plan," but they raised concerns about the proposed study language after receiving a letter and testimony from the Department of Public Service and the Public Utility Commission.

A representative of The Nature Conservancy told the committee that the high-level data the previously proposed study would generate would not reliably distinguish whether cleared trees were located in the two forest habitat types or forest blocks lawmakers want to protect. That gap, the organization said, would limit the study’s usefulness for assessing habitat impacts.

Responding to that critique, the House delegation transmitted draft 2.1 to the conference as an alternative study approach. The proposed revision retains an emphasis on forest data but aims to provide a finer breakdown of impacts across different forest site types.

Conferees discussed a narrower scope to make the study feasible for agencies. Under the approach outlined in the meeting, the study would focus on projects of one megawatt or greater and would examine activity in the most recent two years rather than the last five, so information mostly appears in certificate-of-public-good (CPG) filings and associated environmental impact assessments. Committee members said that narrowing the timeframe and focusing on larger projects should make the work manageable for the Public Utility Commission and align with the data readily available in CPGs.

Legislative staff and agency representatives described a collaborative drafting effort: the PUC, the Department of Public Service, the Agency of Natural Resources and the Attorney General’s office worked on suggested language intended to gather useful, feasible data. Committee members characterized the resulting consensus language (earlier circulated as draft 1.1) and the House’s draft 2.1 as steps toward a compromise.

Members signaled they expected the narrower study could be completed within the committee’s requested schedule; the House team said it anticipated the work could be done by January. Conferees also asked routine drafting questions—such as whether "the last two years" should be specified as "full calendar years"—and confirmed staff from legislative counsel would clear final wording.

There were no formal motions or votes recorded in the conference. The committee paused to await an absent senator and to transmit the clean draft of 2.1 for further review.

What happens next: The conference committee will circulate the clean copy of draft 2.1 to conferees and continue negotiations; agencies that provided input (PUC, Department of Public Service, ANR, AG) will be positioned to supply the data requested if the narrower scope is adopted.