Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee backs uniform method for solar property assessments to reduce developer uncertainty
Summary
The Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation voted to advance SB 13 29, which establishes a preferred cost-based methodology for assessing utility-scale solar property after a long-standing exemption ends in 2027. Industry groups supported the bill; county assessors warned it could lower local revenues and reduce uniformity.
Senator McNerney introduced SB 13 29 as a measure to create a statewide preferred methodology for assessing utility-scale solar property once the existing solar property tax exclusion sunsets at the end of 2027.
The bill’s author said the change will provide certainty to developers and help California meet its clean-energy goals. "The solar industry is ready to pay our share of property taxes and support our communities where we build," Stephanie Doyle, California director for the Solar Energy Industries Association, told the committee in support of the bill. Industry witnesses asked the committee to prefer a cost or replacement-cost method and to exclude federal investment tax credit (ITC) and production tax credit (PTC) values and other subsidies from assessed value.
Supporters said a preferred cost method offers predictable, verifiable values that align California with neighboring states’ approaches and will help projects secure financing. John Redling Schafer, senior tax counsel for Advantis, said the replacement-cost methodology is "a transparent calculation based on objective and verifiable data" and estimated that his firm could pay more than $1 billion in property taxes over coming years under such an approach.
Opponents — primarily county assessors and county representatives — warned the bill departs from market-based appraisal standards. Kristen DePaul, Modoc County Assessor and President of the California Assessors Association, said early reviews showed assessed values for some utility-scale facilities could fall by roughly 40%, and that SB 13 29 "disconnects assessed value from real market behaviors," raising the risk of inconsistencies and disputes across counties. Paul Yoder, representing Kern, Fresno and Kings counties, told the committee the prior exclusion cost Kern County nearly $200 million over the last decade and cautioned about local revenue losses.
Committee members pressed opposition witnesses on which counties would be most affected and urged the author to work with assessors and rural communities to mitigate local impacts. McNerney said the bill is intended to produce new revenue and to make assessment consistent across the state.
At the hearing the committee moved the bill to the Committee on Appropriations (motion recorded as "pass to Appropriations; bill on call"). The committee recorded the action as part of its subcommittee process and instructed staff and stakeholders to continue technical conversations.
