[Column] Are Mega Solar Regulations Becoming Redundant? Reading the JFBA’s Model Ordinance on Renewable Energy Coordination from a Practical Standpoint

2026-07-30

✅ In a nutshell

📄 In July 2026, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) published a “model ordinance” for local governments targeting mega solar and large-scale wind power projects (nine items, including permit and notification systems, zoning, security deposits for removal costs, and penalties).
🏛 That said, the national government is already moving swiftly to develop nationwide uniform rules — expanding the scope of environmental impact assessment, enacting the Recycling Act, and amending the Electricity Business Act — so layering further local regulation on top risks creating redundancy.
⚖ Permit systems, security deposits, and penalties tend to increase procedural burdens and reduce predictability, and may therefore chill the renewable energy investment that decarbonization requires.
🔎 Consideration for the local environment and disaster prevention is, of course, a given. Nevertheless, speaking as someone who came from the operator side and who still wishes to promote renewable energy, I believe that unless we carefully assess the proportionality of the means and their consistency with national rules, we may in fact undermine deployment.

Table of Contents

Introduction

This article examines, from the perspective of project operators, the “Model Ordinance for Coordination Between Renewable Energy Projects and Local Communities” published by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (the “JFBA”).

The model ordinance is presented as a template enabling local governments to address, by ordinance, community concerns regarding mega solar and large-scale wind power generation (JFBA Model Ordinance).

Let me begin by making my own position clear.
I originally worked in practice on the side of renewable energy project operators, and as a lawyer I remain in a position of wishing to actively support the deployment of renewable energy.
Accordingly, this article is written not from the standpoint that “renewable energy regulation should be strengthened further,” but from an operator-oriented concern that “precisely because we want renewable energy to spread soundly, we should be cautious about how regulations are layered.”

Of course, I strongly share the underlying concern for the local natural environment, disaster prevention, and landscape.
Having been on the operator side, I understand all too well how a minority of inappropriate projects has eroded community trust and, as a result, created headwinds for renewable energy as a whole — including for conscientious operators.
On that basis, from the standpoint of someone involved in renewable energy practice, there are several points about this model ordinance that give me pause regarding how, and when, regulation is being layered.

In this article, after accurately confirming the content of the model ordinance, I would like to set out the practical issues from an operator’s perspective.

Overview of the Model Ordinance

Let us begin by confirming what the model ordinance proposes.

Its scope covers so-called mega solar projects with an output of 1 megawatt (MW) or more, and large-scale wind power plants (JFBA Model Ordinance).
It comprises nine items: general provisions (purpose, basic principles, responsibilities of the local government, and plan formulation), zoning, permit and notification systems (including prior consultation with the local government and residents), a security deposit system for removal costs, measures to ensure effectiveness such as reporting requirements and penalties, promotion of community-benefit projects, and a renewable energy council.
The JFBA presents this not as a call for local governments to adopt the ordinance in full, but as a reference from which each may draw the items necessary in light of local circumstances.

To be precise, it should be added that this model ordinance does not make “resident consent” a requirement for projects.
The accompanying commentary expressly states that, with respect to prior consultation, the procedure may conclude even where local residents are not satisfied, provided the project plan is judged to be reasonable.
Accordingly, this article does not — and cannot — criticize the model on the basis that it “grants residents a veto.”

Issue 1: “Duplication” at a Time When National Rulemaking Is Advancing Rapidly

My first reservation concerns timing.

The national government is currently advancing environmental and safety rulemaking for renewable energy at considerable speed.
The scale threshold for solar power generation subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment Act has been under review with a view to lowering the Class-1 Project threshold from 40MW to 20MW (Ministry of the Environment, draft report).
In December 2025, the government adopted a “Package of Measures Concerning Large-Scale Solar Power Generation Projects (Mega Solar),” setting out cross-ministerial measures including tighter discipline on forest land development permits under the Forest Act (Ministry of the Environment, reference materials).
The Act on Promotion of Recycling of Solar Cell Waste (Act No. 33 of 2026) was also enacted in 2026, establishing a framework for panel recycling and removal (House of Councillors, bill information).
Furthermore, the amended Electricity Business Act enacted in July 2026 introduced a mechanism for pre-construction verification of conformity with technical standards by a third-party body in respect of the supporting structures (mounting systems and foundations) of solar power generation facilities (METI; please also see my column).

In short, many of the issues the model ordinance seeks to address — the structural safety of embankments and slopes, environmental impact assessment, panel removal and recycling, and discipline over forest development — are already being addressed through nationwide uniform rules.
Encouraging local governments, in these circumstances, to further layer permit systems, zoning, security deposits, and penalties by ordinance risks subjecting the same subject matter to double or triple regulation by national rules and local ordinances.
Regulation is not necessarily better simply because more of it is layered on.

Issue 2: The “Weight” of Permit Systems, Security Deposits, and Penalties, and Predictability

The second concerns the weight of the means employed.

The model ordinance combines strong measures — not merely notification, but permit systems, prior consultation, security deposits for removal costs, reporting requirements, and penalties.
A permit system affords local governments greater discretion than a notification system, and depending on how screening is administered, the timing of construction commencement can become difficult to foresee even for a lawful project.
Renewable energy projects are structured around grid connection, EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction) contracts, and financing, all predicated on the outlook for construction commencement and commercial operation.
Where permit, consultation, and security deposit procedures that differ from one local government to another are added at the entry point, predictability declines and the premises underlying investment decisions and financing are liable to be destabilized.
As for security deposits for removal costs, the national government has already established the decommissioning cost reserve system for FIT/FIP (Feed-in Tariff / Feed-in Premium) projects under the Act on Special Measures Concerning Procurement of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources, so it is necessary to consider whether a double burden would result.

Issue 3: Despite the “Mega Solar” Label, the Reach May Extend to Smaller Projects

The third concerns the breadth of the scope.

The stated purpose of the model ordinance is framed around mega solar projects of 1MW or more and large-scale wind power as its principal targets.
However, the commentary on the exemption provisions indicates that what is excluded is solar with an output of less than 10 kilowatts (kW) and similar installations, meaning that facilities of 10kW or more, and projects covering areas exceeding 1,000 square meters, may fall within the scope of regulation depending on how each local government designs its ordinance.
There is thus a considerable gap between the “mega solar countermeasure” banner and the range the ordinance could actually reach.
National policy, by contrast, is oriented toward encouraging the deployment of small and medium-scale solar for rooftops and self-consumption.
If local governments misjudge the design of their thresholds, there is a risk that procedural costs will suppress even the small and medium-scale deployment that ought to be promoted — a practical concern worth noting.

Issue 4: The Patchwork of Local Ordinances

The fourth concerns nationwide consistency.

With respect to solar power generation, many prefectures and municipalities have already enacted their own ordinances (Ministry of the Environment, Material 1 (list of scales covered by local ordinances)).
The scales covered and the procedures required vary from one local government to another, and for operators considering projects nationwide, dealing with this “patchwork of ordinances” has already become a practical challenge.
If a common model is now widely distributed, it may raise the baseline; at the same time, as each local government selectively adopts portions of it, regional divergence may in fact become more complex.
As with the scale thresholds for environmental impact assessment, it is necessary to be newly conscious of the division between matters that the national government should design uniformly from a nationwide perspective and matters that local governments should handle in light of local circumstances.

In Fairness: The Significance of the Model Ordinance, and the Real Issue

Having offered these criticisms, in the interest of fairness I should also touch on the significance of the model ordinance.

It is a fact that a minority of inappropriate projects — involving embankment collapse, soil runoff, and impacts on landscape and living environments — have eroded community trust.
Putting in place effective means by which communities can respond to improper projects is, if anything, a prerequisite for sound renewable energy deployment.
From my experience on the operator side as well, I have repeatedly seen how a single project that loses community trust exposes even operators who have engaged carefully with local communities to the resulting backlash.
That is precisely why I am not opposed to regulation as such; rather, because I genuinely want renewable energy to expand, I want to be exacting about how regulation is made to work.
The model ordinance has no binding force, its adoption is left to the independent judgment of each local government, and it has practical value in easing the burden on local governments that would otherwise draft ordinances from scratch.
On that basis, the real issue is not “whether to regulate,” but “whether the means are proportionate to the objective” and “whether they duplicate or conflict with national rules.”
Where the national framework already addresses the same problem, local ordinances should properly be designed to fill only the remaining gaps in a minimal fashion, and I believe caution is warranted before extending permit systems, security deposits, and penalties in something close to full specification.

Implications for Practitioners

Finally, some practical points for operators.

First, it is important to ascertain at an early stage both the existing ordinances of the host local government and any movement toward amendments referencing the model ordinance.

Second, permit, prior consultation, and security deposit procedures should be built into the schedule for grid connection, EPC, and financing from the outset, working backwards to determine the timing of construction commencement.

Third, it is useful to identify areas where obligations under local ordinances overlap with national rules (environmental impact assessment, the Recycling Act, verification of supporting structures under the Electricity Business Act, and the FIT/FIP reserve system), and to organize matters so as to avoid duplicative compliance and excessive burdens.

Conclusion

The JFBA’s model ordinance is underpinned by a legitimate concern for the local environment and disaster prevention, and I do not dispute that objective itself.

However, at a juncture when national rulemaking is advancing rapidly — the expansion of environmental impact assessment coverage, the Recycling Act, the amended Electricity Business Act, and the package of measures — broadly encouraging local governments to add strong regulatory layers risks creating regulatory redundancy and, through reduced predictability, chilling the renewable energy investment that decarbonization requires.

What matters is not the quantity of regulation, but the proportionality of the means and the coherence of the division of roles between the national and local governments.
For operators, financial institutions, EPC contractors, and local governments involved in renewable energy projects, what is needed now is not to add regulation cumulatively, but to take the existing national framework as given and discern only those locally specific measures that are genuinely necessary.
I make this argument not from a position of wanting to halt renewable energy, but — drawing on the experience of having done the hard work on the operator side — precisely because I want renewable energy to expand in earnest, and therefore believe we should be exacting about the quality of regulation.