HB 372 would create a new statutory framework in Kentucky for “circular energy facilities” and “advanced recovery facilities,” which are defined as nonhazardous waste conversion operations that use non-combustive, closed-vessel, pressure-based or hydrothermal processes to turn waste streams into fuels, energy carriers, fertilizers, chemicals, and other by-products. The bill states legislative findings that landfilling is outdated and harmful, and it declares a state policy favoring a “circular energy economy” that recovers value from waste rather than disposing of it.
The bill would establish a Circular Economy and Advanced Recovery Advisory Council within state government to study siting, incentives, permitting, financing, site inventories, and regulatory classifications for these facilities. The council would include state officials, local government representatives, industry, environmental, academic, and private-sector members, and would be required to report annually to legislative committees with recommendations for statutory, regulatory, workforce, and financial reforms.
HB 372 would also limit local governments and solid waste management districts from adopting or enforcing plans, ordinances, or policies that categorically prohibit or discriminate against circular energy facilities or advanced recovery facilities as a class. At the same time, the bill preserves local zoning, building code, public safety, and state environmental permitting authority, and it expressly allows local governments to partner with private developers and utilities on siting, financing, development, or operation of these projects.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to create a new policy category for waste-to-energy and materials-recovery facilities, establish a state advisory body, and preempt local bans or categorical exclusions of these facilities in solid waste plans and related local policies. It would likely affect counties, cities, solid waste districts, waste management companies, developers of conversion technologies, and communities where siting decisions are made, while also opening the door to future incentives such as tax credits, tax exemptions, special financing, and expedited permitting.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn, so there is no documented floor sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears strongly supportive of the industry and framed around economic development, environmental protection, and energy policy. Likely points of contention would include local control versus state preemption, whether the facilities should receive preferential permitting or tax incentives, and disagreement over how to classify non-combustive conversion technologies relative to incineration, gasification, or other waste-processing methods.
HB 372 would add new definitions and policy directives to KRS Chapter 224 governing waste management and energy-related facilities. It would create a state advisory council, require annual reporting, and authorize the development of recommendations on incentives, permitting, site inventories, and regulatory reforms. The bill would also restrict local governments and solid waste management districts from categorically banning or discriminating against circular energy facilities or advanced recovery facilities in solid waste plans or related policies, while preserving general zoning, building code, public safety, and state permitting authority.
No committee transcripts or votes are provided, and the bill’s last action was withdrawn, so there is no direct recorded sentiment from legislative debate. The bill text itself reflects a favorable posture toward circular energy and advanced recovery technologies, emphasizing economic development, environmental benefits, and waste reduction. Any opposition is not documented in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests that local control and facility classification issues would likely be the main sources of concern.
The main likely points of contention are local government authority, facility siting, and technology classification. The bill would prevent counties, cities, and solid waste districts from using categorical exclusions to block these facilities, which could draw resistance from local officials and residents concerned about land use, environmental impacts, or community acceptance. Another likely dispute is whether the proposed technologies should receive preferential treatment, expedited permitting, or tax incentives, especially given the bill’s effort to distinguish non-combustive conversion systems from incineration, gasification, and refuse-derived fuel systems.