Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wind Energy Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears testimony on wind-power moratorium bill; moratorium motion fails in committee
Summary
Senate Bill 4 66, which would place a temporary moratorium on new wind power devices over 150 feet until July 1, 2027 while studies on impacts to migratory waterfowl are completed, received contested testimony from developers, conservation groups and local landowners. The committee ultimately rejected the moratorium motion on a voice vote.
The Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee considered Senate Bill 4 66, a proposal to impose a temporary moratorium on wind power devices taller than 150 feet until July 1, 2027 to allow study of potential impacts on migratory waterfowl and raptors.
Sponsor Senator Blake Johnson said the moratorium would fund and allow research focused on potential effects to birds and local ecosystems in Arkansas's flyways: "This will . . . allow a study to be done that will predominantly focus on the windmills' impact or potential impact on migratory waterfowl and predatory birds, also known as raptors," he said.
Nut graf: Testimony showed a split between conservation and hunting groups urging caution and additional study, and developers and renewable trade groups arguing moratoria would kill investment and jobs. Ducks Unlimited and other conservation groups said data are limited for Arkansas and the Mississippi flyway; wind companies countered that standard siting studies and federal permitting processes already address wildlife concerns.
Testimony highlights: Ed Penney of Ducks Unlimited said the bill "provides that opportunity to provide for studies" and emphasized habitat-conservation options. Brad Leila of Cordelia Power said wind projects bring large investments and long-term payments to counties and landowners — for one Cross County project he said the company will pay roughly $489,000 per year in industrial property taxes plus $454,000 in lieu payments to the county. Triple Oak Power and other developers urged the committee not to adopt a two-year moratorium, arguing industry follows national siting guidelines and does multi-year studies.
Vote: Committee members voted on the moratorium motion; the transcript records that "No's have it," indicating the moratorium measure failed on a committee voice vote.
Ending: Sponsors said a moratorium would preserve habitat until better data are available; opponents said a moratorium would halt projects already under development, risk local tax revenue and jobs, and duplicate scientific study developers already perform.
