1 of 19

Policies to power

America’s energy future

The Energy Siting Landscape

January 2026

My name is Nelson Falkenburg and I’m the Siting Policy Manager at Clean Tomorrow. Clean Tomorrow is a new trans-partisan non-profit advancing novel policy approaches to address climate change.

I lead our Siting Solutions Project at Clean Tomorrow, which is a think tank laser focused on making sense of siting policies and designing new, novel siting approaches for states. We work across the US exclusively at the state level both directly with policymakers and in support of advocacy organizations.

Our work is focused on onshore, utility-scale wind, solar, and battery storage technologies

Along with traditional research and analysis, we also work to bring stakeholders together and inform partners on effective siting policy. And, we provide bill tracking, bill analysis, and proactive policy design for renewables siting legislation.

2 of 19

Agenda

Siting Trends and Barriers
Siting 101 and 201
Developing Solutions

3 of 19

Siting Trends and Barriers

4 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

Rising demand and increasing residential electricity rates

4

For two decades, annual nationwide electricity growth has been below 1%
New forecasts from FERC show an increase in demand of 15.8% by 2029
Residential retail electricity rates rose 27% between 2019 and 2024 and will likely continue trending upward
One in three Americans skipped essentials to pay their electricity bill

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Short-Term Energy Outlook”, January 2025

Power demand is surging, thanks in large part to AI and the resulting data center build out, plus increasing electrification of transportation and buildings.

For over two decades, the utility industry has been in a low growth period, well below 1% per year. But that’s all changing with annual peak demand growth projected to average 3% per year over the next five years. While this may seem small, it all adds up quickly.

At the same time, residential retail electricity rates have risen sharply every year since 2020, tracking and outpacing inflation.

According to LBNL, the primary causes of rising retail electricity prices are grid infrastructure upgrades, volatile natural gas prices, and impacts from natural disasters and extreme weather, though there is significant variance across states.

Regardless, Americans are feeling the pinch, with one-in-three skipping essentials like food or medicine to pay their electricity bill.

5 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

Restrictions on clean energy are proliferating, leading to cancellations

5

As of July 2025, 20% of counties have effectively banned wind, solar, or both.
1/3 of projects cancelled in last 5 years, representing 36 GW and billions of dollars in unrealized development

Developer-reported leading causes of project cancellations

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), “Survey of Utility-Scale Wind and Solar Developers Report,” January 2024.

At the same time, despite being the fastest and most economical to build, restrictions on clean energy are proliferating, leading to cancellations

A July 2025 study from Heatmap News found that 20% of counties effectively banned renewables, a 5% increase over the year before. The impact is 17% of the US’s total land mass is subject to a renewable ban or restriction.

And we know these siting policies are having a profound effect on the industry. Between 2019 and 2024, 1/3 of projects were canceled–equating to 36 GW of unrealized new electricity capacity.

The graph on the right is from a 2024 national lab survey of wind and solar developers and shows the principal causes of project cancellations are restrictive local ordinances, grid interconnection, and rising community opposition.

6 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

6

State policymakers and agency staff agree

Data for Progress/Clean Tomorrow survey of elected state officials and public sector employees from 17 states
Respondents overwhelmingly from high seniority roles and have experience with renewable energy policy and permitting

7 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

Local Siting is Hard to Get Right

7

Lack of expertise and resources
Outsized influence of small groups
Organized opposition and misinformation
Lack of trust, changes to local character, and localized impacts
Limited tools to gain benefits

But why are local governments adopting restrictive zoning ordinances and placing moratoriums on renewables? Well, it’s not just NIMBYism – that is too simple a boogeyman – local communities have some legitimate concerns and face real challenges

First, local governments are resource-constrained and reacting conservatively to "pump the brakes" on approving these new projects until they can figure out a solution
Also, marginalized rural communities risk missing out on the benefits of clean energy because small oppositional minorities have an outsized influence on the permitting process
BUT local community opposition is often rooted in legitimate concerns, including:

Changes to the local character and taking ag land out of production
Localized environmental impacts like stormwater runoff
And a lack of transparency in the development process leading to a trust deficit between community members and developers

Finally, communities aren't seeing the financial benefits of hosting and so are reacting to block projects through restrictive zoning

8 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

Developers often prefer to work with a willing local government

8

More efficient
Less expensive
Delivers greater local net benefits

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), “Survey of Utility-Scale Wind and Solar Developers Report,” January 2024.

Developer-reported expense and efficiency, state vs. local

Still, despite all this, developers often prefer to work with a willing local government, even though local permitting processes are typically less predictable and local governments are often less likely to approve a project than a state authority.

Why? According to the same LBNL survey of solar and wind developers from slide one, it’s because local siting is faster and cheaper, and, on net, developers agree also that local permitting tends to deliver more benefits to local communities

Local permitting is more efficient. There are often less reviews, agencies, process, and permit requirements when permitting at the local level. So, developers are able to get their permits more quickly.

Because developers can get their permits more quickly, the local process is less expensive than the state process, and this is of high importance to developers who are primarily concerned for their project’s bottom line

In summary, energy demand is increasing, retail electricity rates are rising, the most economical projects are being blocked, and communities are saying no for a host of reasons. Those are the challenges and headwinds, but also the opportunities - we believe good policy can help solve for many of these issues

Next we’re going to walk through a little Siting 101 and discuss how siting policy attempts to solve for these barriers.

9 of 19

Siting 101 & 201

10 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

10

Source: Clean Tomorrow, “Insight Report: State Policy Approaches to Renewable Energy Siting,” May 2025

Siting policy refers to:

1. who permits which projects under which conditions

Local or state? Or some mix? If state, which agency or siting board? What conditions determine who?

2. the process for doing so

Timelines? Environmental review? Public engagement? Community benefits agreements?

So, what can we do about it? Well, one way of addressing restrictions on renewable energy projects is through improved siting policies.

Now, some quick 101 on siting policy. Siting policy refers to who permits which projects under which conditions AND the process for doing so.

The “who” part refers to which government entity has authority over decision-making. If it’s the state, then it’s typically a utility commission or a siting board. If it’s the local government, then it may be individual counties, townships, or municipalities.

The process element here refers mostly to the permitting aspect – how a project gets permission to be built.

The map on the right is from our report released in May and shows, by state, whether projects are primarily sited by the state, local government, or through some hybrid approach.

A couple trends to note here

States in the northeast and Midwest tend to take several approaches to siting, but often include state siting authority
On the flipside, states in the southeast and southwest, tend to take more of a local government, or hybrid state/local approach
Some of the approaches trend closely with politics, but some don’t—IL is a meaningful outlier
Finally, as you can see from this map, it’s messy—there’s a lot of variance between states

11 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

There are myriad ways to design a siting policy

11

Most states use a combination of the policies listed here
Policies often seek to balance local and state permitting authorities
Equivalent policies in law may differ in practice

The spectrum of siting policy frameworks and mechanisms

Source: Clean Tomorrow.

Let’s dive a little deeper into siting policy design – this is Siting Policy 201.

The table at the right is pulled from the same recent report and describes the different policy frameworks for siting projects across a spectrum of state and local authorities. We identified 15 different policy frameworks and sorted states into each. At the top of this table, you have predominantly state siting and at the bottom, minimal siting regulations refer to states where landowners hold most or all decision-making power over which projects may be built.

Most commonly, a state will have distinct permitting processes for large and small projects – that’s contingent authority. In other cases, a state may have multiple permitting pathways available to local governments or developers, regardless of project size. That’s where the hybridity, like opt-in/opt-out, comes in.

State guardrails allow local governments to retain principal siting authority, but are subject to restrictions enacted by the state legislature.

Finally, it’s crucial to note that states implement their policies in distinct ways: an apparently equivalent policy in law may have very different implications for project development in practice. We include detail on each of these policy frameworks, including considerations and case studies, in our report.

We’ll get back to policy design and solutions at the end, but first I’d like to share with you some of our findings from the 2025 legislative session

12 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

Legislators across the US are grappling with siting reforms

12

Between January and June 2025, we tracked 300+ bills introduced across 47 states
Twice as many restrictive bills were introduced.
Only 30 bills passed, most with neutral impact

Legislators are grappling with the tensions around siting and permitting in real time. Last year we tracked and analyzed 300+ bills that dealt with renewable energy siting, and assessed their potential impact on renewable energy deployment, categorizing them on a spectrum between very restrictive to very permissive. The most startling and stark finding was that there were more than twice as many restrictive bills introduced as permissive ones.

Restrictive legislation was especially common in two sets of states:

Republican-controlled states with high rates of wind and solar development, in particular Oklahoma and Texas;
and Democrat-controlled states with recently passed comprehensive siting and permitting reforms, such as Michigan, Illinois, California, New York, and Washington.
In the conservative states, unlikely alliances including chambers of commerce, conservation groups, landowners, the renewable energy industry, and even the oil and gas association, banded together to stop restrictive siting bills.

Despite all the bills introduced in 2025, very few actually passed. Only one in ten –about 30 bills – passed their legislatures, most with neutral impact, with restrictive and permissive bills breaking even.

Interestingly, the states that passed siting bills are all trifecta states, which may reflect both how hard it is to pass legislation in non-trifecta states AND the lack of policy nuance and middle ground on this particular topic.

13 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

Several states passed siting reforms in 2025

13

Permissive: �Indiana, Ohio, and Oregon
Restrictive: �Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana
Ambiguous:

South Carolina and Maryland

I’m not going to go into a ton of detail about what passed in 2025, but as you can see from the map, there were quite a few states that adopted renewable energy siting reforms.

Aside from Arkansas, the most restrictive bills were avoided in Oklahoma, Texas, and Arizona. Indiana, Oregon, and Ohio all passed minor improvements to their siting statutes, with “all of the above” policies passing in Ohio and Indiana.

There are also a few states we know for sure will be pursuing siting reforms in 2026 and 2027, and then a few I can guess at. We are always trying our best to stay informed of what industry and climate advocacy groups are planning.

For sure: Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Iowa

Some likelihood for 2026: Louisiana, Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Michigan

Strong likelihood for 2027: Texas, Indiana

Keeping a close eye on: Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas

On the positive side:

Indiana passed tech-agnostic permitting reforms that benefit renewables, along with natural gas. SB 425 includes a limit on energy project moratoria, standardizes timelines, improves permitting processes, and protects projects’ vested rights. A Governor’s energy infrastructure task force and booming data center demand means these topics will continue to be in play in 2026 and 2027.
Ohio passed siting reforms in SB2 and HB15 to expedite brownfield siting for energy projects and allow for local zoning of projects under 50 MW
Oregon also made modest improvements to siting in the state, passing three bills to expand permitting options for smaller renewable projects, improve permitting and appeals processes, and add reasonable light mitigation requirements for wind farms
Not included in this map, Illinois passed the Clean Reliable Grid Affordability Act in October, which includes clear standards for local governments to site battery energy storage projects, as well as beneficial updates to permitting fees and timelines.

On the negative side:

Arkansas passed the most restrictive bill of the session (SB 437) which impacts wind, including setback distances of 3.5 times the tip height from private property and 1 mile buffers from sensitive areas like schools, parks, city limits, etc. The bill also includes stringent financial security requirements including 100% bonding up front for decommissioning.

An early version of the bill would have split the state in half, allowing the eastern side of the state, where most wind development is taking place, to be exempted from the law. Unfortunately, that provision was removed in a later version of the bill.

Louisiana also passed restrictive solar siting legislation, but it was a major improvement over the original proposal. HB 459 has large (but not unworkable) setbacks; a very low allowable noise threshold of 10 decibels above ambient; plus state-level permitting requirements through the DENR that need to be ironed out in rulemaking
In Oklahoma, advocates were able to avoid an onslaught of restrictive bills with three passing and two receiving vetoes from Governor Stitt, one of which was then overridden by the legislature. In the end, decommissioning agreements and light-mitigating technology are now required in the state, but it could have been a disastrous session.
Texas proposed SB 891, which also had large setback distances for renewables, along with other punitive requirements. Texas currently leads the US in deployment of renewable energy through a hands-off approach, allowing landowners and the market to determine deployment outcomes, but that pro-business approach is increasingly under threat.

One minor restrictive bill that did pass in Texas will require parks and wildlife commission approval for wind development in coastal areas, but just how restrictive that bill is depends upon the rulemaking process.

14 of 19

Developing Solutions

15 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

No one-size-fits-all solution for energy siting

15

6 Principles for Effective Siting Policy

Clear Rules: create predictable,transparent permitting processes with consistent standards
Timely Decisions: establish enforceable timelines that provide certainty for all stakeholders
Fair Process: base decisions on objective criteria rather than political pressure
Economic Opportunity: protect the rights of landowners, workers, and communities to benefit from renewable energy development
Community Benefits: ensure meaningful local input and tangible benefits for host communities
Land Stewardship: Plan for and manage impacts on agricultural lands, wildlife, and habitats

Effective siting policies must balance the rights of landowners with the role of government, parse the jurisdiction of state and local officials, and improve outcomes for communities.

There is no single best policy and no silver bullet here. What works well in Texas won’t work in Massachusetts. Each policy must be tailored to the particular cultural and political context of the place.

But, we do think any good, or effective siting policy, should include these six principles: Clear Rules, Timely Decisions, Fair Process, Economic Opportunity, Community Benefits, and Land Stewardship. I’ll walk through these briefly and give an example of a policy element or lever that animates each policy principle

1. Clear rules: Basically, the permitting process should have clear standards and a predictable, consistent application of those standards.

For example: policymakers should define transparent criteria for permit approval or denial and ensure consistent application of standards across similar projects and jurisdictions

2. Timely decisions: In short, let’s speed things up a bit here

For example: policymakers should establish clear, enforceable timlines with defined shot clocks for key milestones, consequences for missed deadlines, and reasonable extensions as needed

3. Fair process: let’s take the politics out of it and keep things transparent

For example: objective criteria should be used to asses a project’s health and safety impacts, while applying uniform standards and best available science

4. Economic opportunity: Basically, landowners should benefit from their land

For example: policymakers should limit prohbitions on development and require any restrictions to serve a legitimate public purpose

5. Community benefits: let’s give locals more reasons to host projects

For example: Policymakers should ensure dedicated, stable revenues to communities through payments in lieu of taxes, development agreements, and annual per MW fees

6. Land stewardship: let’s limit the impacts to wildlife and habitats

For example: policymakers should establish best management practices and a risk-based consultation framework with state fish and wildlife agencies

We elaborate on these principles – and policy levers animating them - in detail in our most recent report, but suffice it to say, these 6 principles should be included in any effective siting policy.

16 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

Bringing it all together with frameworks

16

These models can effectively balance the roles of state and local governments, while achieving the six principles
Models should not be adopted whole cloth, but can be easily modified and combined

I’m going to walk through the four different siting policy models, some specific state examples, and some things to be aware of.

The four models are the Safety Net Model, the Threshold Model, the Guardrails Model, and the Referee Model.

If designed appropriately these models have the power to effectively balance the roles of state and local governments, WHILE ALSO achieving the six principles.

That said—caveat—none of these models is perfect and none should be adopted whole cloth. These are simply a great place to start.

Also, these models can be combined. It’s common to see the Threshold Model or Guardrails Model serve as the foundation, with either the Safety Net or Referee Models as an added element.

Since 2020, eight states have adopted major renewable energy siting reforms and serve as the basis for these models. These eight states include California (2022 AB 205), Illinois (2023, HB 4412), Massachusetts (2024, S 2967), Maryland (2025, HB 1036), Michigan (2023, HB 5120), Minnesota (2042, SF 4784), New York (2020, S 7508B-JJJ), and Washington (2022 and 2023, (HB1812 and HB 1216)

17 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

What local governments can do about renewable energy siting

17

Review your local government’s zoning ordinances and permitting requirements for renewable energy projects
Learn your state’s process for permitting and siting renewable energy projects

Adopt ordinances and permitting requirements that are permissive for siting renewable energy projects

Support legislation in your state to improve renewable energy siting and permitting

The most impactful things you can do are to make sure you understand the zoning ordinances of your local government and the permitting and siting processes of your state government.

Once you’ve wrapped your head around that, you can work with your colleagues in local government at the city, township, or county level to improve siting and permitting processes. There are tons of model ordinances out there, and best practice documents, for siting and permitting wind, solar, and battery energy storage.

You can also exert influence at the state level to support legislation to improve siting and permitting outcomes for your communities, or defend against existing laws that meet the six principles discussed above. A group called the Siting Resource Center is developing a library and network of experts on this topic to help connect local governments with helpful resources.

Your best leverage points for engagement on this topic are peer governments, state regulatory agencies, state energy offices, extension offices, PUC or other siting commissions, and local legislators.

As you continue to work on this issue, keep in mind the six principles for effective siting policy – many of these can apply to local zoning ordinances, too.

Case study -

18 of 19

Siting Solutions Project

What local governments can do about renewable energy siting

18

Other next steps:

Engage prospective developers early
Host briefings on energy issues with non-profit partners
Dispel myths and misconceptions for your community
Ensure your community is fairly compensated for hosting

19 of 19

Nelson Falkenburg

Siting Policy Manager

nelson@cleantomorrow.org

THANK YOU!

sitingsolutions.com