Clean Energy’s Growing Problem: Restrictive Siting Laws

Electricity demand is surging across the United States, driven by electrification, rapid data center growth, industrial needs and more. Despite record progress on clean energy deployment in the U.S. last year, there is a critical need to pick up the pace — not only to replace aging infrastructure, but also to account for future load growth.

Renewable energy is the cheapest, quickest way to help meet increasing demand. Yet large wind and solar installations that feed into the grid are becoming more difficult to build across the country. Recent clean energy policy rollbacks, new restrictions and heightened scrutiny of wind and solar projects, and tightened federal permitting rules are only part of the story. The local laws that determine project locations and whether these projects can be built at all have become a growing hurdle.

By the end of 2024, at least  450 counties across 44 states had adopted severe restrictions on siting renewables, per a study from Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center.¹ This was up 16% from the previous year. Some counties, cities and towns have temporarily paused new clean energy construction or banned it altogether.

What was once a technical issue has become a critical, complex and increasingly contentious obstacle, complicated by social and institutional challenges. But even as siting becomes more difficult, new strategies are emerging to help move projects forward. We explored how some of these strategies could help strike a balance — ensuring not just that clean energy gets built, but that the communities hosting these projects see real benefits.

Local Ordinances Are Key to Clean Energy Development  

Siting, quite simply, is the process of determining where new energy infrastructure can and can’t be developed. As of mid-2024, one analysis found that 37 states give their local governments authority, either exclusively or conditionally, to set siting standards for solar and wind projects because they control local zoning laws and land-use regulations. Local authorities set standards around things like location, noise and height, which must be met for projects to obtain permits. If the standards are not met, state and local governments can also restrict or prohibit projects.

While local siting is most common, some states do maintain some state-level control over the siting process. Laws and regulations are evolving rapidly, with authority shifting between state and local governments. Some jurisdictions — both local and state — are attempting to expedite projects while others seek to restrict them.

Most “utility-scale” wind and solar projects (which generate power for the grid rather than on-site use) are sited in rural areas with large acreage. Between 2009 and 2020, more than 70% of utility-scale solar farms and 90% of utility-scale wind turbines were sited in rural agricultural land.  The amount of land this entails is, however, small compared to total farmland in the U.S. and these projects, particularly wind, often allow continued agricultural use around the infrastructure.

Because rural landowners and communities will host a significant portion of future wind, solar and transmission projects, it’s particularly important that they are well versed in the siting process. Governments in these areas also need to be able to assess the benefits and impacts of renewable projects and develop ordinances that can balance clean energy goals with other local priorities.

How Local Siting Laws Can Hamper Clean Energy Growth

Local siting ordinances aren’t always a hindrance. They can provide clear guidelines to facilitate clean energy development. For instance, Albemarle County, Virginia, recently adopted an ordinance defining regulatory processes for both smaller and utility-scale renewable projects, designed to help meet the county’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050.

However, local ordinances can also use a range of approaches to restrict or ban clean energy projects. For example, they can impose low maximum height requirements to restrict large projects like wind turbines. Many jurisdictions have “setback” requirements that require projects to be located a certain distance from property lines or other structures. While reasonable setback requirements can ensure safety, larger distances are often meant to deter project development in some areas entirely. Other ordinances can limit energy capacity, physical size, noise or location that effectively block clean energy development.

These kinds of “restrictive ordinances” now exist in nearly every state in the country.

Some local governments have also implemented moratoria banning clean energy development in the jurisdictions entirely. Moratoria can either have no expiration date or can be temporary, giving local governments the necessary time to review their siting policies. Earlier this year, Van Zandt County, Texas, passed a temporary moratorium on all new "green energy" projects, including solar, wind and battery storage. Newfane, a town in western New York, is pursuing a six-month moratorium on all battery energy storage systems.

Recent studies have found that stricter or restrictive ordinances can reduce land availability for renewable energy development. However, there is limited understanding of how local ordinances are impacting project outcomes. A study of the Great Lakes region found that local laws in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin could reduce utility-scale solar development by 18% by 2040. This represents roughly 8 gigawatts of lost solar capacity and $4.8 billion in lost investment. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory surveyed over 120 industry professionals and found that community opposition, often expressed through restrictive local ordinances, is a top reason for project cancelation. More analysis is needed to understand how restrictive local ordinances are affecting project delays and cancellations at the state and national levels.

Why Are So Many Communities Restricting Renewables?

Clean energy can bring direct benefits to host communities. When negotiated properly and developed well, rural wind and solar projects can provide family farms with a significant, long-term revenue stream that helps stabilizes them against volatile crop prices. Payments vary by project and state, but the clean energy industry pays out around $1.4 billion for land-lease payments to landowners each year. Projects also generate tax revenue to support local infrastructure, schools and fire departments.  

But not everyone who lives in a rural area is excited about the prospect of clean energy development. While local opposition is often chalked up to “not in my backyard” or “NIMBY-ism,” residents can have concerns about potential impacts. A 2023 study found that many communities are worried about “possible impacts to farmland and agricultural production, biodiversity, stormwater runoff, home and property values, [and] solar panels' toxicity and safety.” Anti-clean energy advocates often prey upon these concerns by spreading misinformation about proposed projects, or about clean energy generally, and rallying opposition.

Local opposition can also be driven by a lack of transparent, early engagement from developers. One survey focused on wind development found that “a planning process that is perceived as ’fair’ can lead to greater toleration of the outcome, even if it does not fully satisfy all stakeholders.” Yet while developers generally understand the importance of community engagement, the pressure to secure site control before engaging the local community can create a “too little, too late” scenario that frequently hardens opposition.

Restrictive ordinances aren’t always driven by local pushback. Rural local governments often operate with minimal staff support and may lack the time, resources and expertise to keep updating complex zoning language for evolving new technologies. For instance, while an ordinance in 2010 would have allowed for smaller wind turbines, the same ordinance might not accommodate current turbines, which are much taller and more powerful.

Sometimes local governments use restrictive ordinances to manage the pace of project development, especially when it threatens to overwhelm infrastructure, environmental resources or the character of their communities. Some may have welcomed clean energy projects previously but now demand a pause — often by imposing a moratorium — because the scale of growth has become too significant.

Emerging Strategies to Unlock Clean Energy Siting

A variety of strategies are emerging to help balance clean energy goals with land use, environmental protection and local interests. These can help overcome siting hurdles in ways that make sense for nearby communities. While some strategies show promise and/or are already seeing success, others face resistance, highlighting that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

1) State-Level Preemption and Streamlining Permitting

Some states are stepping in to address local siting challenges through state-level preemption, expedited permitting processes and creating uniform state standards.

Preemption of local authority limits local governments’ ability to outright ban or unreasonably restrict clean energy development. In places where this is happening, a state-level siting authority approves projects that meet state standards, reducing local veto power. The process involves establishing uniform statewide standards for setbacks, noise and height for projects to prevent more restrictive local ordinances. Some states are pairing preemption with a streamlined, one-stop-shop approach for environmental reviews and permits.

Maryland’s Renewable Energy Certainty Act (RECA) preempts local zoning requirements that prohibit the construction or operation of solar projects, especially solar installations over 1 megawatt (MW) and energy storage projects. State agencies are required to develop standardized land-use requirements for siting these projects. Michigan’s Public Act 233 of 2023 allows the Michigan Public Service Commission to gain authority over wind, solar and storage projects of certain sizes, unless the local government adopts a compatible renewable energy ordinance that is “no more restrictive” than state requirements for setbacks, noise and safety. California, Illinois and New York have taken similar steps. In New York, the Office of Renewable Energy Siting creates uniform siting standards and issues a single permit for renewable energy projects larger than 25 MW, replacing multiple state and local permitting requirements.

State preemption can accelerate large-scale renewable deployment to meet state decarbonization goals, while reducing developer risks from inconsistent, localized decisions. But there are risks, too. It can undermine local government efforts to shape their own communities, reduce or eliminate opportunities for meaningful community engagement in the siting process, and even  spur litigation and organized opposition to future projects. Some argue that state preemption should be a last resort, implemented only when engagement with local officials fails or when local ordinances are overly restrictive. Maryland’s RECA demonstrates a middle ground, it caps 5% of a county’s priority preservation area (designated agricultural and forest lands), thereby protecting local control while still allowing for clean energy development.   

2) State Assistance and Incentives

Local governments can design more effective siting rules when they are equipped with the staff, data and tools to do so. State governments can help provide these resources, helping to address capacity and knowledge gaps and ensure that local officials can respond to developers’ and communities’ needs.

A growing number of states are already offering technical assistance, mapping tools and planning guidance to help local governments understand the impacts and siting needs of large-scale renewable energy projects. They can offer regulatory and financial incentives to communities that align their local ordinances with state renewable and clean energy goals. They can also help local governments navigate opposition and incorporate community feedback early in the process.

One example is the U.S. Department of Energy’s Reliable Energy Siting through Technical Engagement and Planning (R-STEP) program, which provides funding to state-based collaboratives to build local capacity for renewable deployment. Local governments get access to technical assistance, training and workshops to navigate complex siting, permitting and community engagement challenges. One R-STEP grantee, the Renewable Energy Academy in Michigan, is helping local officials prepare for the new renewable energy siting law under Public Act 233 (see above). Another, Purdue Extension, is leading an Indiana Renewable Energy Planning and Technical Engagement Collaborative to help communities with renewable energy planning, evaluation and decision-making.

Michigan has created other state-funded programs that collectively encourage local renewable development. The Renewables Ready Communities Award provides $2,500 to $5,000 per megawatt to local governments hosting solar, wind or storage projects. The Community Energy Management Program offers financial and technical assistance to local governments to accelerate the deployment of renewables and energy efficiency projects. The University of Michigan Graham Sustainability Institute is providing training, model ordinances, and expert guidance to help local governments understand siting and permitting strategies.

These initiatives are still too new to have had an observable impact and  more research is needed to evaluate the long-term impacts that state-level incentives — such as financial support and technical assistance — have on local siting and permitting.

3) State-Level 'Fair Share' Approach

The “fair share” approach is gaining traction as a framework to balance the urgent need for renewable energy with local control, ensuring that no single community bears a disproportionate burden. Modeled on fair-share affordable housing programs that have existed for decades to reduce exclusionary zoning, this approach would require states to set renewable and/or clean energy requirements for all municipalities based on their “fair share” of energy potential or some other metric. Local governments would determine how they meet their targets and could opt out after meeting their fair share of development. Such policies can be supported by state-level technical and financial assistance to help local governments identify suitable areas for development and mitigate impacts.

The “fair share” approach balances state and local control, shifting the focus from state-level preemption to shared responsibility for state-wide clean energy goals. While no state has fully adopted a “fair share” policy for renewable energy projects, some have incorporated elements of this approach in existing legislation and new bills.

Several questions remain on how a “fair share” approach for renewables could work. Determining what constitutes a “fair share” can be complex and would require coming up with equitable metrics such as available land, energy capacity and emissions reduction. It’s possible that some areas with the highest renewable resource potential could be left under-utilized. Even when a fair share is established, there’s no guarantee that there wouldn’t be political and local community resistance. Finally, depending on how fair share is defined, there might be the challenge of addressing rural-urban divide and the difficulty of siting large projects in densely populated urban areas.

4) Community Benefits Frameworks to Address Local Opposition

Unlocking faster clean energy development will mean getting nearby communities on board. One promising way is by using  community benefits frameworks, which can minimize project risks, overcome opposition and ensure communities benefit from new energy infrastructure.

These frameworks encompass a range of different benefits-sharing agreements and plans, which can vary in scope, legal enforceability, signatories and benefits delivered. In general, however, they can offer local communities a voice in project development and tangible benefits, such as local hiring guarantees, job training programs, financial investments, and other social and economic improvements. They can also generate community support, helping to minimize political risks for local officials working to advance renewable energy projects. Developers can also see benefits, including reduced project risk, streamlined siting and permitting approvals, and the social license to operate.

Benefits-sharing agreements, such as community benefits agreements and host community agreements, are increasingly common for wind, solar and energy storage projects. In 2021, the Town of East Hampton in New York and South Fork Wind LLC signed a host community agreement which included nearly $29 million in payments over 25 years to benefit the community.

A few state governments, including California, Michigan and New York, now mandate some version of benefits sharing in clean energy projects. Under California’s AB 205, developers seeking certification for renewable energy facilities with 50 MW of capacity or more must enter into “one or more legally binding and enforceable agreements with, or that benefit, a coalition of one or more community-based organizations.” With the Trump administration rolling back Biden-era requirements around community benefits plans, more states are being called upon to support such frameworks.

Community benefits frameworks are not meant to be a silver bullet. While they show promise, several questions remain about their structure, benefits, accountability and enforcement mechanisms and overall effectiveness.

Local Ordinances as a Lever for Progress

Utility-scale wind and solar projects are an essential piece of the puzzle to meet growing electricity demand in the U.S. Local ordinances can function as a powerful tool to accelerate the deployment of these projects — particularly when federal policies are introducing uncertainty and increased oversight.

However, this hinges on creating guidelines that provide clear, predictable pathways for renewable energy and balances development with community priorities that help build local support. Such an approach would balance renewable energy goals with community interests without substantially slowing down project development.
 

¹ The Sabin Center’s annual report is not a comprehensive review of every jurisdiction in the country but provides a helpful data point to track the increase in restrictive ordinances. Other organizations, including Heatmap Pro and Center for Progressive Reform, are also tracking the rise of restrictive local ordinances hindering U.S. renewable energy projects.