Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates bill prompting cities to require cost-benefit reviews before siting large solar on farmland
Summary
Representative John Gannon presented RS 3,257 C1, a proposal that would require cities to require cost-benefit analyses comparing rooftop and parking-lot solar to ground-mounted solar on farmland for certain new construction. The committee considered the request and later voted to return the request to the sponsor for revision.
Representative John Gannon (District 17, Boise) told the committee RS 3,257 C1 is intended to prompt local governments to "think" about placing solar on rooftops and parking lots rather than converting farmland to utility-scale solar. He said the bill asks cities to require a cost-benefit analysis for specified new construction so community leaders can compare rooftop or parking-lot installations against ground-mounted facilities.
"Do you really wanna put this stuff on farmland or do you wanna put it on, rooftops and parking lots?" Gannon asked the committee, saying the proposal is meant to get municipalities and developers to weigh alternatives before approving large ground-mounted solar projects. He repeatedly described the measure as non-mandatory "thinking" rather than a strict installation requirement.
Committee members raised practical and scope questions. Representative Crane asked whether developers would be required to pay for the analysis; Gannon said he expects the estimates to be de minimis and noted solar vendors commonly provide free estimates. Representative Ponca and others noted the bill text applies to "every city in Idaho," and questioned whether it would capture projects in unincorporated areas; Gannon said the initial version targets cities only and that counties could be added later if the bill advances.
Representative Barbieri and others asked whether the proposal would force data centers or large warehouses to supply a portion of their energy on-site; Gannon said the bill does not mandate on-site generation but is designed to encourage consideration of alternatives. Several members worried the requirement could impose additional costs or sales solicitations on developers if it forced them to obtain solar estimates.
After discussion, a motion was made to return RS 3,257 C1 to the sponsor for further work; that motion passed.
The sponsor and committee members requested additional drafting and clarifications — including the bill's geographic scope, thresholds for covered buildings, whether estimates should be required to be free, and whether counties should be added to the rule — before a subsequent hearing.
