Stitt Responds to Inola Aluminum Smelter Moratorium
Stitt Responds to Inola Aluminum Smelter Moratorium After Trustees Extend Freeze
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt is criticizing Inola's decision to extend a moratorium on heavy industrial development, arguing that changing local rules during a multi-year permitting process could undermine Oklahoma's ability to attract major investments.
The Inola aluminum smelter moratorium was extended unanimously by the Inola Town Trustees through April 7, 2027, temporarily preventing heavy industrial permitting while the community continues debating the proposed $4 billion Oklahoma Primary Aluminum smelter.
That same day, Inola voters are expected to decide a citizen-led initiative seeking a permanent town-wide prohibition on primary aluminum smelting. The dispute has become a collision of economic development, local control, environmental concerns and ongoing litigation surrounding one of Oklahoma's largest proposed industrial projects.
Stitt Calls Inola Aluminum Smelter Moratorium a Damaging Precedent
In a statement issued following the trustees' decision, Stitt argued that development of the industrial site and recruitment of a major manufacturer had been underway for years.
The governor said Public Service Company of Oklahoma began preparing for major industrial growth in 2014, Inola zoned the area for heavy industrial use in 2017, and the Tulsa Port Authority began developing its industrial park in 2019 with state and federal funding.
According to the governor's statement responding to the Inola moratorium, the Port Authority pursued the competitive process that eventually brought the aluminum proposal to Inola in 2023, with the town participating in preparations for the project.
Stitt said residents should continue having a voice in the process but criticized changing local regulations after development and permitting work had begun.
“Local voices should continue to speak into the process, but changing the rules in the middle of a multi-year permitting process undermines the certainty job creators need to invest billions of dollars and create thousands of jobs,” Stitt said. “Oklahoma must remain a state where valid zoning, good-faith negotiations, and established legal processes mean something; this reversal sets a damaging precedent that should be carefully reviewed under our Constitution.”
Stitt has described the proposed development as a modern aluminum production facility that could strengthen domestic manufacturing while bringing significant investment and employment to Oklahoma.
Inola Residents Push Environmental and Public Health Concerns
The trustees' 5-0 vote followed months of opposition from residents concerned about potential effects on air quality, water, agriculture, livestock and public health.
The proposed facility is being developed by Oklahoma Primary Aluminum, a venture involving Emirates Global Aluminium and Century Aluminum. The Oklahoma Attorney General's Office says EGA holds a 60% interest, while Century holds the remaining 40%.
State environmental regulators are separately evaluating the project. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality's Inola smelter permit process involves an air quality construction permit application submitted by Oklahoma Primary Aluminum.
DEQ says its responsibility is to determine whether appropriate emission controls and technologies are included and whether the proposed facility satisfies applicable regulatory requirements before any permit decision is made.
The proposed smelter would have a planned production capacity exceeding 750,000 metric tons of aluminum annually, according to the Attorney General's Office. State officials on opposing sides of the dispute have presented sharply different assessments of the project's potential economic and environmental effects.
Residents supporting the moratorium have argued that the additional time is necessary to evaluate those effects before construction proceeds. The spring election would give Inola voters a direct decision on whether primary aluminum smelting should be permanently prohibited within the town.
Inola Aluminum Smelter Dispute Is Also Playing Out in Court
The local moratorium is only one part of the fight surrounding the project.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a lawsuit in June 2026 seeking to stop development of the smelter, arguing the project could create environmental, agricultural and public health risks. The developers dispute those allegations and have defended the project.
Drummond later sought a preliminary injunction to block construction while the lawsuit proceeds. His office cited projected emissions, electricity and water demands and potential effects on livestock and surrounding communities among its concerns.
The case was moved to federal court by the defendants in July before being returned to Rogers County District Court in September. The federal judge concluded the defendants had not established federal jurisdiction, according to the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office update on the Inola litigation.
That leaves several separate processes moving simultaneously.
The town has extended its permitting moratorium through April. Residents are preparing to vote on a permanent prohibition. DEQ continues handling the environmental permitting process, and the Attorney General's lawsuit is proceeding through state court.
Stitt, meanwhile, argues that the Inola aluminum smelter moratorium raises broader questions about whether companies can rely on local zoning and permitting rules after committing years and significant resources to a development.
For residents opposing the project, the central questions remain whether the proposed facility is appropriate for Inola and what its long-term effects could be on the surrounding community.
Those competing positions are now headed toward an April 7, 2027 vote, when Inola residents are expected to have the opportunity to decide whether primary aluminum smelting should be permanently banned within the town.
Comments