The House Public Utilities and Energy Committee on Friday adopted changes to HB 241 that would restrict state incentives for utility-scale solar projects sited on certain productive croplands and grazing lands and would require decommissioning plans and financial assurances for large solar installations.

Under the first substitute — adopted in committee — project sites located on soils or grazing lands classified in the bill as productive would not be eligible for specified state incentives. The second substitute, which the committee recommended favorably on a 9–1 vote, also added a requirement that solar project owners submit decommissioning plans and provide financial security (for example, a bond, escrowed funds, a letter of credit, or other acceptable financial assurance) adequate to cover reclamation costs, with credit allowed for reasonable salvage value.

Representative Kevin J. Jack (committee chair) and sponsor Representative Jack said the bill is intended to protect Utah’s agricultural capacity while preserving private property rights; the substitute does not prohibit landowners from building solar on their own land, but removes some state incentives for projects placed on soils or grazing lands the bill defines as prime for farming or grazing.

The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food reported the state has about 10.5 million acres of farmland (irrigated, dryland and pasture) and roughly 45 million acres of grazing land. The department’s director of legislative affairs, Amber Brown, told the committee she supports the sponsor’s approach of steering incentives away from high-value agricultural soils while still allowing solar development on lower-quality or nonproductive lands.

Industry representatives said they appreciate the sponsor’s engagement and several improvements in the substitute, but asked for clarifications and exemptions for projects that are already contracted or permitted. EDF Renewables and other developers noted project timelines sometimes span a decade or more; EDF said one Millard County project’s lease negotiations began in 2013 and construction procurement is planned for this year, and requested that the bill’s incentive restrictions and permitting requirements be clarified so projects already well into development are not unfairly disadvantaged.

The substitute’s decommissioning section requires an estimate of reclamation cost prepared by a third party with decommissioning expertise, agreed by the local permitting authority, and financial security not less than the estimated cost less reasonable salvage. Several witnesses — including developers and trade groups — supported the concept of financial assurance but asked the committee to clarify whether the requirement would duplicate county bonding or other existing local requirements.

Environmental and conservation groups urged careful siting and suggested additional study of agrivoltaics (dual use of land for solar and agriculture). The Utah chapter of the Sierra Club asked the Legislature to add a study provision to examine agrivoltaic opportunities before imposing eligibility restrictions on incentives.

Public testimony included landowners and developers who described local economic benefits from existing projects — lease payments, property taxes and job creation — and local ranchers who use sheep to manage vegetation beneath panels. Industry groups asked that wildlife consultation be optional and time‑bound and that projects already contracted be explicitly exempted from new incentive eligibility restrictions.

After public comment and additional clarification from the sponsor, the committee adopted the first substitute and then voted 9–1 to pass the substitute version of HB 241 with a favorable recommendation. Representative Dominguez recorded the lone “no” vote.

What the substitute does
- Limits eligibility for certain state incentives (as defined in statute) on land the bill identifies as irrigated cropland or productive grazing land, based on soil/grazing classifications provided by agricultural experts.
- Requires a decommissioning and reclamation plan for solar power plants with an independent cost estimate and financial assurance (bond, escrow, letter of credit, or other security) no less than the estimated reclamation cost after deducting reasonable salvage value.
- Preserves local permitting authority; the substitute defers technical permitting details to the local jurisdiction and requires coordination with county planners and conservation districts in some cases.

Key committee concerns and clarifications sought
- Industry asked for explicit exemptions for projects with existing contracts/permits and for clear definitions of which state incentives are affected (some developers asked that incentives tied to federal tax credits be clarified).
- Stakeholders requested time limits and a defined scope for required wildlife consultation to avoid indefinite permitting delays.
- Developers sought guidance on whether local bonding regimes would be considered duplicative and how financial assurance levels would be calculated; the substitute establishes a third-party estimate process to set amounts.

Next steps
The bill advances from committee to further floor and committee consideration. The sponsor and industry representatives said they will continue to negotiate clarifying language on exemptions, incentive definitions and consultation timelines.