How Illinois Turned a Telehealth Bill Into a Solar Farm Law

Updated October 30, 2026.

What does a bill about athletic trainers providing telehealth services have to do with solar farms being built near residential neighborhoods?

Absolutely nothing. At least, not originally.

But in January 2023, Illinois lawmakers took that telehealth bill, removed its original contents, and replaced them with a much larger package of energy legislation that included restrictions on how counties could regulate commercial wind and solar developments.

Five days later, both chambers of the Illinois legislature had voted to approve the rewritten legislation.

And here's an interesting detail. The very next day, a newly elected Illinois legislature took office.

Now, there's nothing automatically illegal about changing the contents of a bill. Springfield does it, and the process has a name: gut-and-replace.

But when you look at what happened before this legislation passed, the story gets a little more interesting.

They Had Been Trying to Change the Rules for Years

Let's go back to 2021.

Illinois lawmakers were already pushing legislation that would limit how much control counties had over commercial wind projects and other renewable-energy developments.

County officials weren't particularly happy about it.

And their objections weren't simply about whether renewable energy was a good idea. They were concerned about who would make the decisions about where these developments could be built.

Would those decisions remain with local county representatives, or would Springfield establish statewide requirements that counties couldn't exceed?

On March 31, 2021, the Livingston County Board adopted a resolution opposing one of those proposals, Senate Bill 1602.

The vote was 21-0, with one abstention and two members absent.

Livingston County's position was that local land-use decisions should remain with the communities affected by them.

And Livingston County wasn't alone.

County organizations across Illinois were raising concerns about the state taking away local zoning authority.

The 2021 proposal didn't become law.

Then came another attempt in 2022.

A new bill proposed similar restrictions involving commercial wind facilities. But its original wind-related provisions were eventually replaced with legislation concerning community mental health.

Those wind restrictions didn't become law through that bill either.

Now, these weren't identical proposals, and the earlier efforts involved different combinations of wind, solar and broader energy policy. But the underlying disagreement over county authority was already well established.

That brings us to January 2023.

Then Lawmakers Used an Existing Telehealth Bill

There was already a bill sitting in the Illinois Senate.

It had originally been introduced to add athletic trainers to the Telehealth Act's definition of health care professional.

Pretty straightforward.

In fact, the Illinois House had approved the original version back in March 2022 by a vote of 103-0, with one representative voting present.

But on January 5, 2023, Senator Bill Cunningham filed an amendment replacing the original bill's substantive contents.

And the replacement wasn't another minor change to telehealth.

It was a much broader package of energy legislation. Among its provisions were statewide rules restricting how counties could regulate commercial wind and solar facilities.

The bill was still called HB 4412.

But what lawmakers were voting on had changed dramatically.

That's what gut-and-replace means. You keep an existing legislative bill and replace what it actually says.

And here's how quickly things moved:

Governor J.B. Pritzker signed the legislation on January 27, 2023.

Five calendar days from filing the replacement language to approval votes in both chambers. A remaining House motion to reconsider was withdrawn January 11.

And all of this happened just before the outgoing legislature's term ended.

Why Did They Push It Through Before the New Legislature Took Office?

This is where the timing deserves some attention.

January 2023 was what Springfield calls a lame-duck session.

That's the short period after an election when outgoing lawmakers can still vote before the newly elected legislature takes office.

Some of the people voting on this legislation were leaving office. Others would continue serving, sometimes in different districts following redistricting.

The new General Assembly began January 11.

Had the legislation not made it through before that changeover, lawmakers would have needed to pursue it through the new legislative session.

Now, does that prove they deliberately rushed the bill to take advantage of the outgoing legislature?

No. I haven't found evidence establishing that as their motive.

And the incoming legislature also had substantial Democratic majorities, so we can't assume the legislation would have failed if lawmakers had waited.

But it does leave a reasonable question.

Why take an unrelated bill, replace its contents, and complete the votes just before a new legislature takes office?

Especially when lawmakers had already been discussing restrictions on county authority for years.

And Counties Were Still Objecting

Here's another part of the story that shouldn't get overlooked.

There was organized opposition to the legislation.

The Illinois State Association of Counties, commonly called ISACo, opposed the new restrictions because they reduced county authority over local zoning and land-use decisions.

In an August 2023 memorandum prepared for the Will County Legislative Committee, the association reported 289 registered opponents in the legislative process. That is the association's reported figure, not an independently audited count of unique people or organizations.

That included the Illinois Farm Bureau, individual counties and ISACo itself.

To be clear, that doesn't mean 289 counties opposed the legislation. The reported count should not be treated as a count of distinct counties or individual people.

The association also reported having participated in earlier discussions about the state's renewable-energy siting rules.

On January 17, 2023, ISACo executive director Joe McCoy sent Governor Pritzker a letter requesting that he veto the legislation.

Ten days later, the governor signed it.

There was support for the bill, too.

The Illinois Environmental Council advocated for statewide standards because it believed restrictive county rules were preventing renewable-energy projects from moving forward and interfering with Illinois' clean-energy goals.

That's the disagreement in a nutshell.

Supporters wanted consistent statewide rules so qualifying renewable-energy projects couldn't be blocked by overly restrictive county ordinances.

County organizations wanted more authority to decide what developments were appropriate for their own communities.

But regardless of which position someone supports, the legislative procedure and the short timetable are separate questions worth examining.

So What Did This Actually Change?

Let's get away from Springfield for a minute and bring this back to Will County.

Before the new statewide rules, counties had more flexibility to establish their own zoning requirements for commercial wind and solar developments.

The 2023 law restricted that authority. The state has amended the framework since then, so the current statute is not identical in every detail to the original 2023 law.

It established statewide standards that counties generally couldn't make more restrictive. It also prevented counties from simply prohibiting covered commercial wind and solar facilities in zoning districts that allow agricultural or industrial uses. These county zoning provisions mainly apply to unincorporated areas, not properties within incorporated villages.

For projects covered by the law, counties must approve applications that comply with the state statute, consistent county ordinances and applicable state and federal requirements.

That doesn't mean every solar farm automatically gets a permit.

Counties still review applications, hold public hearings and address requirements involving setbacks, screening, drainage and other site conditions.

But the reasons they can legally use to reject an otherwise qualifying project are more limited.

And that's where this becomes relevant to homeowners.

We're Seeing the Consequences Right Here in Will County

In April 2026, Will County Judge Bennett Braun ordered the County Board to approve six solar projects it had previously denied.

Developers had challenged those denials in court.

On April 16, the County Board approved the projects in compliance with the court order. That did not necessarily resolve every related legal challenge.

Think about what that means.

A county can have residents objecting to a proposal. Local representatives can vote against it. Nearby communities can raise concerns about future housing, farmland, drainage or the location of the development.

But if the project satisfies the applicable statewide requirements, those local objections may not provide a legally sufficient reason to reject it.

And the concerns aren't always coming from people who oppose solar energy.

Some residents I've spoken with aren't saying that solar farms shouldn't exist in Will County.

They're questioning why certain projects are proposed so close to existing homes, or on land that communities have been planning for other uses.

That's an important distinction.

This isn't necessarily an argument about whether Illinois should produce solar electricity.

It's an argument about where these developments go and who gets to make that decision.

Here's What I Keep Coming Back To

We know lawmakers had been working on restrictions to county renewable-energy zoning authority before 2023.

We know counties were objecting.

We know earlier legislative attempts didn't result in the statewide framework that eventually passed.

And we know lawmakers then took an existing telehealth bill, replaced its contents, and approved the rewritten legislation in five calendar days.

The day after the House approved it, a newly elected legislature took office.

Those are documented facts.

What the records don't establish is why lawmakers chose that particular bill or whether the impending changeover influenced their timing.

And that's really what I'd like to hear explained.

If the legislation already had enough support to pass both chambers, why use a bill that originally had nothing to do with solar farms?

Why not introduce the changes separately and allow the public to follow them from the beginning?

There may be procedural explanations. But when the result affects what gets built around existing neighborhoods and farmland, residents have every reason to ask how those decisions were made.

The Bottom Line

Illinois didn't just change the rules for solar development. It changed how much authority counties have over certain developments in the unincorporated areas they regulate.

The policy had supporters and opponents, and both sides had reasons for their positions.

But the history of how the legislation passed deserves attention, too.

A bill that began with telehealth and athletic trainers ended up carrying major energy legislation. Lawmakers approved the replacement within five days, just before the end of the legislative session.

Three years later, communities across Will County are still dealing with the legal framework that resulted.

Whether you support solar farms, oppose particular projects or haven't made up your mind, I think knowing how the law came about is important.

And if you want to see exactly how your legislators voted in January 2023, I've included the recorded votes below.

Original Sources and Documents

• Illinois General Assembly: Original bill history, amendments and voting records
• January 5, 2023: Replacement amendment
• Public Act 102-1123: Legislation signed January 27, 2023
• Illinois State Association of Counties: August 2023 memorandum to the Will County Legislative Committee
• ISACo: January 2023 response to the legislation
• Current Illinois law governing county wind and solar siting

How Illinois Legislators Voted on the Solar Siting Law

Illinois Senate: January 8, 2023

33 YES, 17 NO, 9 not voting.

These are the recorded Senate votes from January 8, 2023. Party affiliations refer to the 102nd General Assembly. The list does not identify current officeholders or candidates in the November 2026 election. Historical district assignments are not included because several still require reconciliation against the January 2023 roster.

View the original Senate voting record

Illinois House: January 10, 2023

73 YES, 36 NO, 1 not voting, 8 excused.

The House voted separately to concur in Senate Amendments 1 and 4. Both passed by the same totals, and the recorded individual voting positions match between those two votes.

Individual House voting records:

• House concurrence vote on Amendment 1
• House concurrence vote on Amendment 4
• Browsable voting lists for both chambers