Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Solar Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts compromise framework for state solar permitting, preserves local opt-outs
Summary
The Senate Natural Resources Committee approved a sizable amendment to HB 459 that creates state permitting standards for large solar projects, sets setbacks, vegetation buffers and noise limits, and lets parishes opt out of state siting rules by local resolution.
Lawmakers on the Senate Natural Resources Committee approved a compromise amendment to House Bill 459 that would establish state permitting rules for utility-scale solar projects while preserving local control for parishes with existing ordinances.
Representative Coats, the bill’s author, told the committee the measure asks the Department of Energy and Natural Resources to develop permitting and decommissioning rules for solar and battery storage, and the amendment provides a state backstop where parishes have no local rules. “We’re just asking them to promulgate those rules as well,” Coats said.
The committee’s amendment (adopted as amendment 2336) sets specific siting requirements for projects constructed after Jan. 1, 2026. For projects adjacent to residential properties it establishes a 300-foot setback and requires a vegetative barrier of 35 feet of new plantings or 50 feet of existing vegetation. Setbacks near navigable waterways are 100 feet; public roads require 50 feet and a 35-foot vegetative barrier. The amendment also applies to permitting for solar facilities larger than 75 acres and includes a noise standard preventing operations from exceeding 10 decibels above pre-construction ambient noise at the property line. The amendment bans use of chemicals not approved for agricultural use for site maintenance.
The measure leaves parishes free to opt out of state siting requirements by simple resolution, a choice committee members said was intended to respect local ordinances that already regulate solar projects. Industry groups including the Advanced Power Alliance and the Solar and Renewable Energy Association signaled support, saying the compromise provides clarity while allowing local flexibility. “These amendments are a step in the right direction,” said Jordan Gleason of the Advance Power Alliance.
Opponents and some conservation groups voiced concerns about visual impacts, loss of agricultural land and long-term decommissioning and bonding requirements. Matt Cody of the Oil and Gas Association urged stricter bonding requirements to avoid taxpayers inheriting remediation costs when developers go out of business.
With no objection, the committee adopted the amendment and reported HB 459 as amended.
