Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. John Gannon proposes city cost-benefit reviews of rooftop/parking solar ahead of siting large energy facilities
Summary
Representative John Gannon introduced RS 3257 C1, which would require cities to require a cost-benefit analysis of rooftop and parking-lot solar when approving certain new buildings; committee discussion linked the measure to pressure from data centers and large energy projects and the motion to return the RS to sponsor was adopted.
Representative John Gannon, R-Boise, presented RS 3257 C1 as a local planning measure designed to prompt cities to analyze rooftop and parking-lot solar options before permitting projects that consume large amounts of electricity or otherwise pressure farmland conversion for energy projects.
"If you want farmland, and we all do, then this legislation along with some of the other pieces that we will bring in before the committee, maybe ways that we can preserve our agricultural economy," Gannon said. He told the committee that data centers and AI development are creating a large new demand for electricity and that some developers and energy interests target farmland served by existing transmission rather than rooftops or parking-cover solar. Gannon passed examples of rooftop installations in other states to illustrate alternatives.
Committee members asked detailed questions about the bill's scope and burdens on developers. Representative Crane and others said they were concerned that requiring a cost-benefit analysis could impose a cost on small developers or be interpreted as a mandate to install panels; Gannon replied that the requirement was limited to new construction and was intended to be a minimal, de minimis planning step. Representative Ponca and others noted that the RS as drafted applies to cities only and would not reach unincorporated county locations where some large projects are sited; Gannon said counties could be added later if the committee chooses.
After discussion and several members' concerns about whether the bill was ready for a hearing, Representative Palmer moved as a substitute that RS 3257 C1 be returned to the sponsor. The motion to return the RS to sponsor carried by voice vote, and the item will be revised by the sponsor for future consideration.
