Oregon lawmakers have decided against imposing the same siting standards on all renewable energy projects, whether they’re regulated by statewide officials or local governments.

Supporters argued that House Bill 3422 would level the regulatory playing field while protecting high-quality farmland from energy development by requiring an analysis of alternative sites with lower agricultural value.

“This bill will ensure no matter which layer of government you’re talking to, the rules are the same,” said Dru Draper, a legislative aide for Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, the bill’s sponsor.

Small and medium-sized renewable energy projects generally fall under the jurisdiction of local governments in Oregon, while larger projects must be reviewed by the statewide Energy Facility Siting Council.

Under HB 3422, EFSC could only exempt a proposed facility from land use regulations if an alternative site can’t reasonably accommodate the project, aligning its procedures with those of local governments.

Current law allows developers to seek EFSC approval even if a project would normally fall under a city or county’s purview.

Proponents said the bill would prevent developers from using the EFSC process to avoid an alternatives analysis that would likely disqualify a project under local government jurisdiction.

Solar projects would not be outright prohibited on high-quality farmland under the bill, though it would prevent properties with valuable soils and irrigation access from becoming the “first choice” for development, according to supporters.

“This parity is crucial not only for fairness, but to safeguard our ag lands,” Draper said.

However, the Oregon Solar and Storage Industries Association asked the House Climate Committee not to move forward with the “deceptively simple bill,” claiming it would actually block most large-scale renewable energy facilities.

The bill ostensibly requires EFSC to comply with the same standards used by local governments, but the practical effect would be to impose an insurmountable obstacle to larger projects, said Angela Crowley-Koch, OSSIA’s executive director.

While examining alternative project sites within a single county may be feasible, it’d be “impossible” for developers to investigate every alternative in the entire state or even the broader West, as some proponents have advocated, she said.

“That provision would be impossible to implement, making this bill essentially a veto of all renewable projects” under EFSC jurisdiction, Crowley-Koch said. “No project could ever conduct such an analysis. This bill creates too high of a hurdle and no renewable developer would attempt to site projects in Oregon.”

Much of the debate over HB 3422 centered on the wider implications of solar development on farmland, which has become a familiar controversy in the state over the past decade.

Renewable energy advocates argued that such facilities allow landowners to diversify their incomes while continuing to farm with “agrivoltaic” systems, under which crops and livestock are cultivated in conjunction with solar panels.

The bill’s supporters countered that agrivoltaic systems aren’t compatible with all types of agriculture, potentially precluding growers from switching to higher-value crops or installing center-pivot irrigation systems.

In the end, the House Climate Committee did not schedule a work session to vote on HB 3422 by the mid-point of this year’s legislative session, which had the effect of killing the proposal.