Bill would require state siting council to consider alternative locations before placing large energy projects on high-value farmland

House Bill 34 22 drew a lengthy public hearing in the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee on Tuesday as farmers, rural residents, conservation groups and industry representatives clashed over whether the Energy Facility Siting Council should be required to apply the same alternative-site analysis local governments must use.

Drew Draper, staff for Representative Bossard Davis, told the committee the bill “seeks to require the energy facility siting council to apply the same land use standards for siting energy facilities as local governments must follow,” a change proponents say would create parity and protect high-value agricultural soils.

Jim Johnson, working lands policy director for 1000 Friends of Oregon, said the change responds to a long-standing discrepancy the Oregon Supreme Court recognized in a 2005 opinion and argued the county process’ “reasons exception” standard has helped keep many projects off prime soils. Johnson told the committee that, in his experience, counties approved roughly 9,954 acres of solar in the last decade through an exceptions process and that FSEC approvals account for over 52,000 acres. He and other witnesses warned that thousands of acres of Oregon farmland have already converted to solar projects.

Supporters from rural communities said the bill is a modest “check” to ensure alternatives are considered before exclusive farm-use (EFU) land is converted. Troy Jones, a resident near the proposed Muddy Creek Energy Park north of Eugene, said “an alternate analysis is simply a check put in place to ensure that we don't continue to use our exclusive farm use lands without some consideration.” Several farmers and ranchers from Linn County and elsewhere emphasized the value of preserving soil and local agricultural economies.

Industry speakers strongly opposed the bill. Angela Crowley Cook, executive director of the Oregon Solar and Storage Industries Association (OSEA), said HB 34 22 “is a deceptively simple bill that would essentially end large scale renewable siting at FSEC.” She told the committee that the bill, as written, could require developers to evaluate unrealistic statewide alternatives and predicted that vague “reasonably accommodate” language would invite appeals that could “grind to a halt” renewable development in Oregon. Crowley Cook also cited the state’s rule-making process: the Department of Land Conservation and Development’s rules advisory committee (RAC) is scheduled to deliver new permitting pathways to LCDC in June after a year and a half of stakeholder work.

The hearing record captured competing technical claims: some witnesses said large-scale solar can damage soil biology and limit future cropping options, while industry representatives said agrivoltaics and modern siting can avoid topsoil degradation. The committee also heard differing estimates of how much farmland has been converted: Jim Johnson cited a 660,000-acre loss of farmland over a five-year census period, attributing much of the loss in some counties to energy siting and low-density rural residential development; Troy Jones said about 70,000 acres are approved or in process before FSEC for solar projects.

Members of the committee asked technical questions about which statutes to consult — Jim Johnson cited ORS 197.732 for county reason-exception standards — and about how far developers would have to search for alternative sites. No amendments were adopted during the hearing. The committee closed the record; members were told they could submit additional written testimony within 48 hours.