Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Exeter committee questions whether $500-per-panel tax exemption actually promotes solar adoption
Summary
At a town committee meeting, members reviewed the voter-approved solar-panel property tax exemption and found the $500-per-panel proxy and current assessment practice may produce only modest savings for homeowners and could be administratively burdensome; the committee agreed to seek clarification from the assessor before proposing changes.
At a meeting of the town committee, members reviewed the town's existing solar-panel property tax exemption and questioned whether the measure, implemented as a $500-per-panel proxy, meaningfully encourages rooftop or community solar.
The committee said the exemption began as a voter warrant article more than a decade ago but that assessors initially lacked a reliable way to value panels, so implementers adopted a $500-per-panel figure as a practical proxy. A member who analyzed assessor records said exempted values on the current roster total about $1,500,000, the average exempted amount is roughly $13,000, and the estimated annual tax savings for an average household is about $246.17 under the town's tax rate.
"I'm super pro renewable energy," the Select Board representative stated, "but I don't think this exemption is what motivates people to install panels." Committee members repeatedly said installation payback and net-metering credits tend to drive adoption more than small local property-tax breaks.
Members compared Exeter's practice with neighboring towns. The committee heard that Rochester caps added exempt value (example cited: up to $50,000 and reviewed at five-year revaluation cycles), Nashua reportedly exempts panel value without a cap, Bedford used a per-kilowatt valuation that effectively "washes" the added assessment, and Amherst links assessed value to kilowatts with a $30,000 cap. The members characterized practice across New Hampshire as inconsistent and often confusing for assessors and taxpayers.
Concerns centered on equity and administrative burden. One member noted that higher-value or new "net-zero" homes are most likely to benefit from the exemption, while households that lack suitable roofs or have low incomes do not. Another member warned that more-complex valuation or inspection regimes would require staff time the town may not have.
Committee members discussed potential alternatives, including linking an exemption to installation cost rather than assessed value, setting a cap, or applying incentives targeted at community solar arrays and public facilities that would benefit low-income residents. Several members favored preserving the exemption's original intent — avoiding a tax penalty for homeowners who improve their properties — while acknowledging the proxy approach may produce a near-wash in practice.
The committee identified two follow-ups: ask the assessor to clarify whether the $500-per-panel proxy adds to the taxable assessment or is accounted for as a breakout that is then exempted, and ask whether outsourced revaluation contractors (MRI was cited) verify panels during five-year revaluations. The committee was also informed that Janet, the assessor staff contact they would consult, has given notice and is retiring July 1, prompting members to prioritize those questions while she is available.
Procedural note: earlier in the meeting the committee approved minutes from the March 18 meeting.
The committee concluded with a plan to collect additional assessor data and return with recommended next steps, including whether to propose a change to the exemption or keep the current practice pending more information.
