Committee advances bill giving landowners negotiable rights for solar leases on Commissioners of the Land Office property

Senate Bill 915, advanced by the Senate Energy Committee, would add optional contract language to allow landowners greater ability to negotiate terms with solar developers and would require a payment in lieu of ad valorem tax for commercial solar facilities installed on land owned or leased by the Commissioners of the Land Office (CLO).

The nut graf: supporters said the bill preserves agricultural uses while allowing landowners to take lease payments (“mailbox money”), and directs revenue to local taxing entities; critics questioned the bill’s statutory effects on CLO taxation, the bill’s definition of “commercial solar energy facility,” and whether the Corporation Commission has enforcement jurisdiction over private contracts and nonjurisdictional utilities.

Senator Green, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure began focused on CLO land but provides optional language countywide so private landowners may secure grazing or agricultural protections while leasing for solar. He told the committee there are “65,000… acres in the queue for Oklahoma with solar” and argued the bill helps family farms keep productive uses. Senators asked at length about whether CLO currently pays ad valorem tax on its leases and whether the proposed payment-in-lieu requirement would create a new tax obligation for CLO-held land; Senator Murdoch noted that the CLO does not presently pay ad valorem taxes and asked whether the bill would change that.

Committee members also pressed the definition of “commercial solar energy facility.” Senator Bourne asked if the bill would treat small distributed systems as commercial; the sponsor said parking-lot distributed panels are considered distribution rather than generation by staff, not the same as ground-mounted commercial facilities. Senator Bourne and others flagged that the statutory language on page 2 requires installation “on permanent grass” for CLO land, which could bar installations that are not on permanent grass, and suggested cleanup in drafting. Several senators asked whether the Corporation Commission could enforce contract terms for private landowners and for projects in co-op or municipal service territories; the sponsor said the commission has statewide authority and that the bill intends to provide enforcement “teeth” where developers act in bad faith.

The committee voted to advance the bill; the clerk recorded 11 ayes and 0 nays. Ending: the sponsor said he would work with stakeholders and staff on clarifying language (definitions, tax treatment and enforcement scope) as the bill moves forward.