Back
This story was first published by the Missouri Independent.
The conversion of Missouri farmland from food to solar power production creates feuds among neighbors, pits residents against developers, and raises questions about property rights.
Those tensions were on full display Tuesday in the Missouri Senate commerce committee, which held hearings on two bills aimed at halting solar power development and a third that would impose new regulations and taxes on large-scale development.
No votes were held on any of the bills.
Laura Stinson told the committee her parents’ Callaway County home, once a peaceful respite, is now plagued with construction noise, dust, and blinding glare from a new development surrounding their 16 acres.
“They are running full steam ahead, and they don’t care who they run over,” Stinson said, pleading with members to pass the bills.
But Dane Reed of Vernon County said his decision to lease land to a solar developer is the best use of his property.
A moratorium, he said, ​“strips landowners of our fundamental right to choose our most profitable crop. And right now, solar energy generates twice the revenue of any other crop we can produce.”
Thousands of acres across the state are being used to construct large-scale solar projects, some for commercial sale of power and others that will be dedicated to supply other new developments like data centers.
State Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican, and state Sen. Sandy Crawford, a Republican from Buffalo, are sponsoring the moratorium bills. The bills would halt all work on commercial-scale solar power installations and direct the state Department of Natural Resources to issue rules on their ​“construction, placement and operation.”
The moratorium would expire Dec. 31, 2027, or when regulations become effective, whichever is later.
The goal of the moratorium, O’Laughlin said, is to force developers to make their plans known so residents can judge for themselves whether the project will benefit the community. Currently, she said, the public becomes aware of projects only after contracts are signed with landowners and the result seems predetermined.
“Communities become divided as the neighbors are pitted against one another, those who signed and those who don’t, and those who bear the environmental, visual, and infrastructure impact versus those who are being paid and receiving compensation,” O’Laughlin said.
The bill establishing regulations, sponsored by state Sen. Travis Fitzwater, a Republican from Holts Summit, would not halt current construction.
Instead, it creates a process for public notice and local approval at the county level that must take place before an application to proceed with a project is submitted to the Public Service Commission.
Without approval from a county commission, the application could not move forward.
Fitzwater’s bill would also tax solar power equipment, currently exempt from property taxes, as personal property. The land would also be taxed as commercial real estate instead of the cheaper designation as farmland.
The bill would cap the amount of land used for solar power production to 2% of the cropland in a county and block the Public Service Commission from granting solar power developers the right to condemn property for energy generation.
“I’m passionate about my constituents that come to my office that are crying over the fact their American dream is being stunted, and I want to provide a solution,” Fitzwater said.
There are 36 states that currently regulate new commercial solar power projects, said Kurt Schaefer, director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Because the Public Service Commission regulates only investor-owned utilities, he said, his agency could be the regulatory agency because its authority can also be extended to electric cooperatives and municipal utilities.
The rules should govern both the setup and operation of solar facilities and what happens when their useful life is over, Schaefer said.
“In the state of Missouri, we require financial assurance for a whole lot of things — land reclamation, for mining activities, wastewater systems,” Schaefer said. ​“You really can’t even put in a small wastewater system for a trailer park without posting a bond.”
One of the most controversial projects is in Henry County, where there is a 5,000-acre solar farm under construction. The project was developed over several years but only revealed publicly at the start of 2024.
In December 2024, after two incumbent commissioners were defeated for reelection, the Henry County Commission approved an incentive package for the solar project that included $650 million in public-sponsored financing.
With the filing of the moratorium bills, construction has picked up pace, said former Henry County Prosecuting Attorney Richard Shields.
“These moratorium bills would give the state the opportunity to tap the brakes on these projects and get some rules in place,” Shields said.
A moratorium would end solar development in Missouri for years, said David Bunge of Azimuth Renewables, a solar energy development company in St. Louis.
“That’s not stability, that’s not good governance, and it’s not fair to the communities of Missouri that have engaged with developers like Azimuth,” he said.
And Mark Walter, a consultant for solar developers, said the moratorium bill is so broad it would prevent individuals from installing new solar panels on their home. The need for regulation is real, he said, but must be targeted against bad practices.
“There are plenty of bad developers out there,” Walter said. ​“I joked for a long time that I had a job in policy because of those folks, and I had to clean up their messes when they would make bad projects that upset local people and end up with state legislation like this.”
‍
.svg)
