Committee hears bill to reclassify agricultural land used for large energy projects as commercial; farmers and solar industry clash

Representative Danny Buzick introduced House Bill 11‑60, which would require assessors to classify agricultural land repurposed to produce energy for resale (utility‑scale solar, wind or other commercial energy facilities) as commercial property for tax assessment purposes. Buzick said the bill’s intent was fairness: when productive cropland is converted for industrial energy production the tax treatment should reflect commercial use, not preferential agricultural classification. He said the bill was not intended to capture small rooftop systems or homeowner net‑metering and invited amendments to clarify that point.

Supporters included local landowners and grassroots groups. Charles Greg Crawford (family farmer) told the panel he had identified 10,000 acres of proposed industrial solar within 10 miles of his farm and urged commercial assessment so local taxing entities would receive higher property tax revenue for services, safety training and decommissioning.

Opponents included John Dolan (executive director, Missouri Solar Energy Industries Association), who said the change would impose a de facto commercial tax rate (around 33%) on large solar projects and could make Missouri an outlier. Dolan urged a more deliberative interim process and said industry and local officials were already working on task‑force recommendations. Other witnesses from the region, including Susan Burns (Callaway County landowner) and Scott Swain (Clean [sic] Bridal Alliance / industry representative), told stories about local impacts, decommissioning concerns and the need for clear decommissioning funds and local planning.

Committee members asked about zoning, county planning, how leases versus sales should be treated, and whether biofuel or on‑site processing (ethanol/cellulose) could be mis‑classified; Buzick said his intent was not to capture operations that process crops for fuel and he would consider explicit language to exempt such uses. Industry witnesses suggested a negotiated, predictable assessment approach tied to generation or a per‑acre formula rather than an across‑the‑board conversion to full commercial assessment.

No final committee vote was recorded in the transcript; the sponsor and several stakeholders indicated interest in continued negotiation and potential amendments.

Note on transcript names: witness organizations and a few group names appeared with inconsistent stylings in the transcript (for example “Clean Bridal Alliance” appears in the record); the article uses the names the witnesses provided or that appeared on the witness list.