Bill would block wind energy projects across 90% of Arizona, set strictest limits in U.S.
A bill making its way through the Arizona Legislature would restrict new wind farm projects to sites at least 12 miles from any property zoned for residential use, leaving almost no land available for wind energy in the state.
If passed, it would become the most restrictive law limiting wind power development in the United States and would remove about 90% of Arizona's land from consideration for this renewable energy infrastructure, according to an analysis by The Arizona Republic and Paste BN.
Roughly half of what’s left would be on Native American and National Park Service land, including locations near the Grand Canyon.
In a state that doesn’t have many suitable places for turbines to start with, this could meaningfully reduce options for decarbonizing the energy grid.
“It's really hard to build wind farms in Arizona, and if you put this into place, it's just pretty much wiping you out,” said Troy Rule, a professor of law at Arizona State University and a published expert on renewable energy systems. “It's like you're trying to kill Arizona's wind farm industry.”
The Republic and Paste BN research found no agency in Arizona that compiles city and county residential zoning maps across the state, so Paste BN used Federal Emergency Management Agency data to filter for residential buildings and calculate the buffers from there. In a discussion about this methodology, Rule said the approach could miss undeveloped land zoned as residential while capturing unzoned land around homes on the tribal land. But the end result, he said, is "not going to overstate the amount of land available."
The proposed 12-mile buffer, in addition to its extreme practical limitations on Arizona wind power siting, also far exceeds any existing residential setback requirement for new wind farms nationwide.
According to Paste BN's 2024 analysis of bans, moratoriums and other impediments to wind and solar energy development across the U.S., typical zoning ordinances in multiple states require a setback of 1.1 to 1.5 times the height of a turbine, totaling about 550 to 750 feet. This ensures that, in the rare event that a turbine falls over, it would not land on a neighbor’s property.
Some jurisdictions have required 1.5 or 2 times the height of a turbine, Rule said, to be cautious and reduce noise.
“But then lately, in the last five to 10 years, we've seen more of these states going beyond that," he said. "Some of it is just anti-wind sentiment at the local level. Beyond about a quarter mile to maybe a half a mile, they're so far away, they're not going to affect anything other than visual.”
A Paste BN review in February 2024 found that Nebraska had the most extreme limitations, with counties requiring one-, two- or even five-mile setbacks. In Iowa, Clarke County passed a law in 2024 that no wind turbine may be built within two miles of a public area, which includes all towns and parks. In 2017, Vermont passed a setback requirement of 10 times the turbine height, or about one mile, from the nearest residence. No wind farms have been built in the state since.
The new law proposed in Arizona would require setbacks approximately 85 times the height of the tallest wind turbines and 115 times the height of shorter versions.
On top of buffers around airspaces, military zones, habitats of protected species, national historic sites and burial grounds or significant cultural places for Arizona's 22 federally recognized tribes, Rule said, this law would effectively cancel all future wind farm opportunities in the state — limiting far more than just clean power.
“It really harms the whole state," he said. "It harms those counties because of the potential tax revenues that could have been generated through that development, potential job opportunities, and the lease revenues for the farmers and ranchers. That's why no other jurisdiction has done anything even close to this.”
Where did this legislation come from and how might it progress?
Arizona Rep. Dave Marshall, R-Snowflake, introduced the bill on the House floor on Jan. 29. It has since progressed through two committee hearings and is due for a House floor vote, where it appears likely to pass based on chamber control and support so far. During that process, an amendment was added requiring "a proposed wind farm to obtain approval from each municipality within 25 miles of the proposed wind farm." This could further limit wind farm siting even beyond Paste BN's map calculation.
Next, it will move to the Senate floor for consideration and, if it passes there, will end up on the desk of Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs.
Hobbs' office did not immediately return The Republic's request for comment on whether she supports this bill. Though a Democrat, her track record on signing environment-related bills into law since taking office in 2022 has been mixed, based on a 2024 Arizona Republic analysis of the fate of state legislation introduced in 2023 and 2024.
Marshall also did not respond to emailed requests for comment on the recent amendment or his broader goals for the bill. But he told a Republic reporter outside the state Capitol on Feb. 4 after the first committee hearing that one of his targets was to ensure energy companies put cleanup money, typically submitted as a bond, in an escrow account where it can more reliably be accessed by rural counties that are often left with the expensive aftermath of a decommissioned project.
As is, the bonds don't mean anything, Marshall told The Republic. "What (the companies) need to do if they actually want to do this, is put that money in an escrow account. Put that $20 million where it can be drawn out and used." He explained that the bond requirement is $20 million in Navajo County, part of Marshall's district, but is often inaccessible or insufficient under current protocols.
Several participants in the Feb. 4 discussion of the bill before the House Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee — where it moved forward after a 6-4 vote — found this part of the legislation especially reasonable, suggesting it could also find more support for that reason as it moves toward becoming law.
Members voting "no" shared concerns that the restrictions were overly broad and could more appropriately be implemented at county levels instead, and that such a law could cause Arizona to fall behind California and Texas on renewable energy progress. Wind energy currently makes up just 1.4% of the electric grid mix in Arizona, which is better known for its solar resources.
The bill faced an additional hurdle when Rep. Patty Contreras, D-Phoenix, who voted a quiet "nay" at the committee hearing, objected to it receiving a date on the consent calendar. But it sailed through that legislative step regardless. The Republic obtained the information about her objection from the House Chief Clerk's Office.
Contreras told The Republic that, while she agrees with some of the siting restrictions in HB 2223, it "goes too far to restrict this clean energy alternative." She also feels the wind-specific restrictions are not consistent with other land uses, give too much veto power to individuals who would be required to approve the project and would mandate bogus wind health impact studies not required for other utilities.
"Proposing a study committee for this bill buys into the conspiracy theory that wind turbines cause adverse health conditions," Contreras wrote, linking to a federal energy website that concludes there is no evidence of this.
A similar bill has also been introduced in the Arizona Senate by Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, but has so far not advanced as far as Marshall's House version. Senate Bill 1016 proposes that a "wind farm may not be located within six miles of the outer perimeter of a property that is owned by a different person or entity than the person or entity that owns the property on which the wind farm is to be located, except if the property owner consents to the location of the wind farm in writing."
Rogers did not respond to an emailed inquiry from The Republic about what inspired her bill or whether she had worked with Marshall on it. But its existence indicates there will likely be at least some support for the concept behind Marshall's more extreme version once it reaches the state Senate.
The citizen-based inspiration giving this wind bill its loft
In communications with rural Arizona residents, The Republic obtained more information about the origins of the Arizona House bill that would become the most restrictive for wind farm siting in the U.S. if it becomes law.
Residents near a proposed wind farm facility in Arizona's White Mountains reached out to The Republic as part of their campaign against the Lava Run Wind project that would build up to 112 turbines over 500 acres close to homes and ranches outside of Springerville. They also reached out to Marshall, who then reportedly worked on the bill now pending at the Arizona Capitol.
Several of these rural residents attended the bill's Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee hearing on Feb. 4 and spoke during public comment in favor of it. Their objections centered largely on their love for the natural landscapes surrounding their community, the water restrictions they already face that would be strained by pouring the concrete needed for turbine foundations, the lasting consequences of all the ground disturbance, rebar, oil and other materials used during construction and the dangers the project may pose for local wildlife.
In discussions with The Republic, they also objected to the project based on suspicions that its progress through the Apache County process toward permitting has come with private benefits for certain officials.
"I just want to stress, I am all for clean energy. I'm just for responsible clean energy," John Crawford told The Republic after the committee hearing. Crawford and his wife, Cary, live in the outskirts of metro Phoenix but own property a four-hour drive north near the proposed Lava Run Wind site where they plan to build a retirement home, complete with self-sufficient rooftop solar panels.
The Crawfords and many of their neighbors would prefer to see a mini nuclear facility be built in the Springerville area if more electricity generation is needed. They feel this option would cause less land disturbance and threats to wildlife, while sacrificing few benefits for locals, such as backpacks promised to residents by Repsol Renewables, the company behind the Lava Run Wind project.
"It's not about the look, we don't care about the look," added Jineane Ford, a former Arizona news anchor who grew up on a ranch in Gilbert, near Phoenix. She now lives in Arizona's White Mountains, where she hosts a radio show and has become one of the most vocal opponents of the Lava Run Wind project.
They feel especially firm in this stance given that, according to what residents told The Republic, Repsol Renewables informed them at a community meeting that the power generated by the wind turbines would mostly go to customers in California.
Many of these project-specific claims were not possible to fact-check since Repsol Renewables did not offer responses to The Republic's requests for clarification or its stance on the bill by the time of publication, and it's unclear whether a purchase agreement is in place for the power yet. But Western energy grid experts have previously explained that electricity fed to the grid system cannot be traced exactly but rather flows the path of least resistance, to where it's needed, to meet regional demand.
“We're powered by energy from other states, and that hurts our economy,” said Rule, one of those experts. “Being able to use the sunlight and the wind that we have is an important way for us to help our energy trade balance.”
A spokesperson for the Arizona Game and Fish Department debunked residents' claims that wildlife on the ground would be poisoned to limit risks to birds of prey hunting in between the rotating wind turbine blades. It's unclear where this rumor originated.
"The Department does not use poison as a management practice for removing or deterring wildlife and there is no truth to the concern identified," wrote Arizona Game and Fish Media Relations Director Michael Colaianni.
The department determined that the area under consideration for the Lava Run Wind facility intersects flight paths of golden eagles, bald eagles and other raptor species and is a breeding area for mountain plovers, all of which reflects residents' nature concerns and would necessitate monitoring if the project moves forward.
Because of their environmental stance in support of the wind siting bill, the group of Springerville residents was shocked to see the bill opposed at the committee hearing by Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter Director Sandy Bahr, who said it would be too restrictive for Arizona's clean energy options and asked why the same distance, approval and bonding requirements are not being proposed for all energy facilities, including those using fossil fuels.
"If this was people complaining about a gas plant, those legislators would call them NIMBYs," Bahr later told The Republic. "But because it's about wind, they're embracing them and writing bills for them. No one is arguing that wind is without impact or that anybody building a wind project, a solar project or any project shouldn't try to be a good neighbor. But this goes well beyond that and is clearly intended to stop these projects."
How national leadership trickles down to local energy decisions
President Donald Trump issued executive orders in January pausing approvals and funding for offshore and onshore wind projects on federal land. Trump has long been known for his public anti-wind stance.
But while many of Trump's early orders are currently being litigated and may not end up having the full sweeping influence on unleashing America's energy resources in the way he called for — or rolling back Biden administration-era progress on their cleaner, renewable counterparts — the act set a precedent that experts say could embolden local GOP lawmakers to take similar steps.
"As misinformation about wind turbines' potential impacts on neighbors spreads and opposition to wind farm development intensifies within conservative circles, states and local governments are increasingly contemplating more extreme setback requirements," said Rule, the ASU law professor. "President Trump's criticism of wind energy has likely helped to fuel this trend, although other political forces are also helping to push these narratives."
The Arizona Republic and Paste BN analysis of acreage that would be left over if HB 2223 passes found that the majority of land left outside the 12-mile buffers is federal, the type being restricted by Trump's executive orders.
If those orders don't pass legal tests but the state bill does, some of the federal land left available to wind in Arizona would be within the confines of Grand Canyon National Park. A representative for the park did not respond to multiple requests for comment about whether the Park Service might ever consider allowing wind farms to be built there. Other federal land left includes that of the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service and military uses.
The second-biggest category of land left available to wind by the Arizona House bill is owned by tribes, primarily the Tohono O'odham and the Navajo nations. Navajo officials did not respond to The Republic's request for comment on whether they foresee allowing wind farm development on their lands in the future.
Chairman Austin Nunez of the Tohono O'odham Nation told The Republic that "we currently do not have any wind farms or individual wind generators on our reservations. We would need to conduct a study to see if it’s feasible. We currently do not have a position on wind farms since we have not had an interest in them."
The Republic also reached out to the White Mountain Apache Tribe for input on its stance on wind energy development on its lands in general, and on the Lava Run Wind project in particular, since it is the closest Indigenous community to that Springerville site. Those emails went unanswered.
Excluding residential buffers required by the Arizona House bill, and the federal and tribal land outside of them, that leaves 0.4% of Arizona that would be open to wind power infrastructure, not all of it in places suited for that energy source. The state owns 0.2% and the other 0.2% is private, which is where the vast majority of wind projects are built nationwide.
The residents near Springerville are asking their representatives to also remove state land from permitting for wind farms, following Trump's lead at the federal level, they told The Republic.
But Rule thinks this viewpoint may not be shared by all rural Arizonans, some of whom may see value in opening up portions of that 0.2% private land to wind turbines.
“All of these landowners that could lease their land and generate significant income for their ranch or their farm, are being told, ‘No, you can't,’” Rule said. “That goes against conservative values.”
The fate of Arizona House Bill 2223 may decide the next phase of that fight, whether the Wild West remains open to wind business and how far across the nation this precedent extends.
This story was supported by a grant for energy coverage from the Fund for Environmental Journalism of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Paste BN health and climate change correspondent Elizabeth Weise contributed to this article.
Joan Meiners is the climate news and storytelling reporter at The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com. Her award-winning work has also appeared in Discover Magazine, National Geographic, ProPublica and the Washington Post Magazine. Before becoming a journalist, she completed a doctorate in ecology. Follow Joan on Twitter at @beecycles, on Bluesky @joanmeiners.bsky.social or email her at joan.meiners@arizonarepublic.com.
Ignacio Calderon is a data reporter at Paste BN, where he focuses on climate and environment stories. Reach out to him at icalderon@usatoday.com.
Methodology: How we did it
Because Paste BN and The Republic could find no agency that maintains a statewide zoning map in Arizona readily available, we used a Federal Emergency Management Agency database that contains an inventory of all buildings bigger than 450 square feet. The researchers who compiled the data used satellite imagery to get building footprints and then combined them with multiple datasets, like U.S. Census Bureau housing unit data and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation Level Data, to label them by occupancy type. More information about that process is available in a peer-reviewed paper.
We filtered the data by residential structures, which counted about 2.4 million such buildings in Arizona. We then applied the 12-mile buffers from the centers of these buildings to approximate what land the proposed bill would remove from consideration for new wind projects.
Having the shape of the buffered area allowed us to compare it to the state's total land to see how much it would cover and how much would be left.
To get more context as to what type of land would be left, we also used Arizona State Land Department land ownership data to overlay the buffered area. This includes categories like private, state, tribal, and a few we joined together as federal including: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service and military land. We applied the same process as before to calculate the intersection percentages to the state's land.
For a full breakdown of the code we used, check out our GitHub methods page.