Montana wind setback bill draws industry and local government opposition, mixed public testimony

Sponsor remarks opened a lengthy House Energy hearing on HB 389, a one‑page bill proposing state-mandated setbacks for wind turbines from property lines, roads and residences. The sponsor framed the bill as a response to neighbors asking for minimum protections where turbines are proposed close to homes and property lines.

Industry witnesses — including Bruce Spencer of the Montana Energy Business Alliance and Dan Stusick of Puget Sound Energy — urged the committee to reject the bill. Spencer described the proposed setbacks as "punitive," warning they would require unfeasibly large acreages per turbine and cited a 2023 figure of about $4 billion in at‑risk investment if such rules were imposed. Stusick said projects such as Beavercreek (248 MW) would not have been feasible under the proposed setbacks and that typical industry setbacks are much smaller (often defined as a multiple of turbine tip height).

Developers and investors (NextEra, Pattern Energy, Scout Clean Energy) also testified that the bill would remove large portions of otherwise buildable land, putting multi‑hundred‑million- to billion‑dollar projects at risk and cutting long‑term property tax revenue. "HB 389 would eliminate over 80% of landowners from our proposed project in Prairie, Dawson, and McCone Counties," said a NextEra representative, noting potential local revenue and job losses.

Opponents were joined by the Montana Chamber of Commerce and building trades unions, which said the bill would harm the state's economic climate and reduce work for construction members. Tribal representatives warned the bill would limit opportunities for rural and tribal communities to develop renewable energy projects that provide jobs and infrastructure.

Proponents of setbacks included ranchers and local commissioners, who recounted living adjacent to turbines and described noise, perceived devaluation of neighboring property, and safety concerns (ice throw, blade failure). Casey Mott, a rancher, told the committee turbines "are noisy... they're an eyesore" and said his family receives no lease revenue while experiencing impacts on livestock and operations. County officials noted that local zoning processes, when used, take years of study and community input.

Committee members asked technical questions about blade fragment distances, sound levels and spacing; industry witnesses said turbine heights and spacing vary by model and site and offered to provide data on tip heights, rotational speeds and noise readings. Sponsor said the numbers used in the bill came from a mixture of industry practices and online sources and indicated openness to amendments.

The hearing produced a large record of pro and con testimony — developers and economic-development groups warned of lost investment and jobs; local residents, ranchers and some commissioners pressed for state protections to guard neighboring property rights and safety. The committee did not take a vote at the hearing.