Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Representative Dabrinski urges phase-out of five-year manufacturing exemption for solar and battery storage in SB237 amendment
Loading...
Summary
An amendment to SB237 would shift effective dates and bar new exemption applications for solar power generators after Jan. 5, 2029, while giving already-filed projects a 20-month window to qualify; the committee gave the bill a do‑pass recommendation after debate over timing and industry impact.
Representative Dabrinski on the committee floor presented an amendment to Senate Bill 237 that seeks to change dates in the bill and to close a five‑year manufacturing ad valorem exemption to new solar and battery energy storage projects.
Dabrinski said the amendment deletes the phrase “01/01/2027” and inserts “01/05/2028,” and adds that “No initial application for exemption shall be filed by or accepted from an entity engaged in electric power generation by means of solar on or after 01/05/2029.” She said the aim is to treat solar and backup energy storage systems the same way the Legislature previously handled wind and data centers.
“I was unaware of that,” Dabrinski said of solar’s current eligibility for a five‑year exemption, adding that the body had acted similarly for data centers in 2021 and for wind in 2015. “There we are in negotiations with, the intention, obviously, of eliminating that exemption for solar and backup energy storage systems.”
The chair clarified the amendment’s transition timetable, saying the amendment negotiated a 20‑month holdover so existing projects would have time to file and not be “rug pulled.” The chair said the effective date language aims to allow companies two days in January following the year they go into service to apply for an exemption. “So we didn't want to rug pull anyone and this is negotiated language,” the chair said.
Members asked whether the original CLE (CLO) language remained; Representative Provenzano confirmed that language was removed. Other members pressed for who would benefit most—solar, battery storage, or data centers—while Dabrinski said precise project lists and footprints were hard to produce because many developments are under nondisclosure and the sponsor had only recently learned of some projects.
Dabrinski acknowledged industry concern about an eleventh‑hour change and apologized for late notice, saying she had tried to get more data on how many projects were in progress and the potential fiscal impact. She argued that the state previously ended similar subsidies and is now seeking parity among renewable partners so “all of these projects ... should pay their own way.”
A motion to adopt the amendment and report SB237 as do‑pass carried; committee staff recorded the vote in the transcript as “17 I 88” (as read aloud at the time). The committee reported SB237 out with a do‑pass recommendation.
Next steps: SB237, as amended, will be reported out of committee for floor consideration.