Kentucky sponsors introduce bill to ban intentional geoengineering over state skies

Representatives and senators backing House Bill 60 presented the measure to the Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary and described it as a narrowly tailored ban on intentional atmospheric interventions over Kentucky.

"It's the attempts by government or even non-governmental actors to modify the global climate or temperature — like playing God with the weather," Sen. Steve Rawlings said when asked to define geoengineering. He outlined two principal techniques sponsors seek to prohibit: stratospheric aerosol injection, which disperses reflective particles high in the atmosphere, and marine cloud brightening, which sprays seawater to increase cloud reflectivity.

Sponsors told the committee the bill would forbid "atmospheric polluting intervention," including but not limited to stratospheric aerosol injection (SI) and solar radiation modification (SRM), while expressly excluding ground-level activities such as crop dusting and airport fog mitigation. The sponsors said they drafted the language after consulting utilities, agriculture and aviation interests.

Why it matters: presenters argued that reflective materials released at high altitude could precipitate onto farmland and water supplies, reduce solar power output and pose human and animal health risks. They cited recent federal disclosures and studies, including EPA material and a White House review, and noted public concern reported by polling organizations and summaries by GAO that effectiveness and impacts remain uncertain.

Sponsors defended criminal penalties in the draft. "A class D felony is necessary because a fine of any size would not be a deterrent for the federal government or for wealthy NGOs," Sen. Rawlings told the committee, adding the bill includes a $500,000 fine designed to offset investigation and conviction costs.

Committee members pressed sponsors on technical and evidentiary questions: the costs and detectability of high-altitude operations, differences between low-level cloud seeding and SRM, interstate effects if neighboring states permit cloud-seeding, and what monitoring and enforcement would look like in practice. Presenters said SRM operations would likely cost millions and require specialized aircraft to reach stratospheric altitudes and that current research is limited and contested.

Sponsors said many other states have considered or enacted similar measures and described the bill in part as an assertion of state sovereignty intended to prompt federal action. No committee vote on House Bill 60 took place at the meeting.

What’s next: sponsors said the bill had already cleared a House Natural Resources committee in the 2026 session and that further technical work and stakeholder discussions will continue before any formal committee action.