AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE MISSISSIPPI AGRICULTURAL AND FARMLAND WIND TOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 2026; TO DEFINE AND REGULATE WIND TOWER FACILITIES; TO VEST EXCLUSIVE SITING, PERMITTING AND OPERATIONAL AUTHORITY IN THE MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; TO REQUIRE CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND AGRICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS, PUBLIC NOTICE AND LANDOWNER CONSENT; TO IMPOSE STATEWIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AERIAL AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, RESIDENCES AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS; TO PROHIBIT WIND TOWER FACILITIES NEAR WILDLIFE REFUGES, WETLANDS, MIGRATORY BIRD CORRIDORS AND CRITICAL HABITATS; TO REQUIRE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE AND DECOMMISSIONING BONDS FOR SITE RESTORATION; TO SUBJECT WIND TOWER FACILITIES TO PUBLIC UTILITY LAWS; TO AUTHORIZE RULEMAKING AND INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION; TO CREATE THE WIND TOWER AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STUDY COMMITTEE AND REQUIRE A LEGISLATIVE REPORT; TO PROVIDE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY, CIVIL PENALTIES AND REMEDIATION REMEDIES; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
HB 1069 would create the Mississippi Agricultural and Farmland Wind Tower Protection Act of 2026, establishing a new state framework for large wind energy projects. The bill gives the Mississippi Public Service Commission exclusive authority over the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of wind tower facilities of 5 megawatts or more, and requires developers to obtain commission approval, a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and a permit before building or operating. Applications would have to include environmental and agricultural impact assessments, public notice, evidence of financial assurance, compliance with setback and wildlife-protection rules, and, in some cases, written consent from adjacent landowners.
The bill also imposes statewide location restrictions intended to protect farmland, homes, schools, churches, public buildings, wildlife refuges, wetlands, and migratory bird corridors. It requires a decommissioning bond or escrow sufficient to restore the site to agricultural condition, and it provides for removal of inactive facilities after 12 months of nonoperation. In addition, the bill creates a Wind Tower Agricultural and Environmental Impacts Study Committee to study aviation incidents, wildlife mortality, and farmland loss, and to recommend statewide siting standards in a report due by January 1, 2027.
HB 1069 would significantly expand state-level regulation of wind energy development in Mississippi by centralizing permitting authority in the Public Service Commission and making private land leases insufficient on their own to authorize construction. It would add new statutory requirements for public utility-style review, environmental and agricultural assessments, public notice, landowner consent in certain cases, setback compliance, and financial assurance for decommissioning. The bill would also create enforceable penalties, including daily civil fines and authority to recover restoration costs from posted bonds, while directing coordination among several state agencies.
The voting history suggests the bill had broad support in both chambers, passing the House 115-4 after amendment, passing the Senate 50-1 as amended, and then receiving near-unanimous House concurrence at 111-1. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into debate, but the overwhelming margins indicate general agreement with the bill’s farmland, aviation, and wildlife protection goals, as well as its effort to impose stronger state oversight on wind development.
The bill’s main points of contention appear to be the degree of restriction placed on wind energy development and the extent of state control over private projects. The legislation is explicitly skeptical of projects that primarily benefit private landowners or out-of-state investors, and it sets large setbacks and wildlife exclusions that could limit viable sites. Potential concerns would likely come from wind developers, landowners seeking lease revenue, and energy advocates who may view the permitting standards, consent requirements, and setback distances as overly burdensome, while supporters are likely agricultural interests, aviation groups, and wildlife conservation stakeholders.