Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee examines bill to remove solar exemption from CUVA, drawing divided views
Summary
Representative Cowan told the committee the measure would remove a carve-out that treated solar installations differently than other commercial uses on land enrolled in conservation-use valuation (CUVA) and the Forest Land Protection Act (FLPA). Environmental groups and economic-development speakers offered competing testimony.
Representative Chuck Cowan presented House Bill 169 (LC442945), which would change how CUVA and FLPA covenants treat solar installations on enrolled agricultural and timberland. Cowan said the bill would treat a solar conversion like any other commercial or industrial use — precipitating a breach of the covenant on the entire tract rather than only on the acres converted.
"This bill does not prevent a landowner from installing solar panels on their farm or forest land," Cowan said. "It just removes the exemption for solar panels and puts them in a category with other similar uses that would likewise trigger a breach." He added the measure would grandfather currently enrolled covenant holders until their 10-year agreement expires.
The bill prompted a wide-ranging debate about farmland preservation, local fiscal effects and energy policy. Mark Woodall of the Sierra Club testified in opposition, saying utility-scale solar helps rural counties and school boards by producing revenue and that farmland loss historically stems from warehouses and subdivisions, not solar installations.
"If a farmer can lease part of his farm and stay in business, that seems like a good thing," Woodall said. He cited an estimate from a Taylor County official that a solar project there could generate about $40,000,000 after abatements.
Supporters of the bill, including several committee members, argued the exemption undercuts the conservation intent of CUVA and FLPA and amounts to an implicit subsidy by shifting tax burdens to other property owners. Representative Martin suggested a compromise requiring proof that a CUVA application predated a given date for new entries, to avoid retroactively voiding existing agreements.
No final action was taken. Representative Cowan and members asked legislative counsel to verify statutory language and timing; the bill will return for further review.
Speakers and testimony reflected both conservation and energy-policy considerations rather than a settled policy consensus. Committee members noted the bill’s effect would depend on how many landowners opt for solar and on whether they restructure which acres remain under protection.
